Today on The Quorum Room: terror-victim plaintiffs reframe the Aave/Kelp exploit as fraud rather than theft on the eve of a Manhattan hearing, the CFTC moves to codify non-custodial developer protections, and a cluster of agent-identity launches start filling the settlement layer beneath ERC-8004 and x402.
The doctrinal escalation you've been tracking since the May 1 SDNY restraining notice: Gerstein Harrow LLP filed a 30-page opposition brief hours before today's emergency hearing, recasting the April 18 Kelp DAO exploit as fraudulent borrowing rather than theft — a pivotal reframing designed to give the attacker legal title to the borrowed ETH so TRIA/FSIA claims can attach. The brief also weaponizes Aave's own terms of service (which disclaim custody and control) to contest Aave's standing to challenge the freeze — inverting the non-custodial posture Aave relies on to limit liability. ZachXBT publicly accused Gerstein Harrow of filing fraudulent claims. Aave is demanding plaintiffs post a $300M bond if the freeze stands. The May 6–7 hearing determines whether the 30,766 ETH gets released to the DeFi United recovery initiative or remains frozen pending the terrorism-judgment creditors' claim.
Why it matters
The fraud-vs-theft distinction is the specific new threat vector this hearing introduces. Prior coverage established the FSIA/TRIA theory; today's development is that the plaintiffs have found a way to sidestep the foundational DeFi legal argument — 'stolen property returned to victims remains theirs' — by arguing the attacker had legal title as a borrower, not a thief. If that framing holds, any flash-loan or borrow-based exploit becomes potentially TRIA-attachable, and the scale of the sovereign-immunity execution risk expands dramatically. The standing argument is the second new danger: if courts accept that 'disclaiming custody = no standing to defend,' protocols cannot litigate on their users' behalf even when they're the only party with the resources to do so. Watch the bond ruling as the near-term tell: a high bond effectively kills the freeze in practice.
The LayerZero/Kelp attribution dispute is now legally load-bearing here: Lazarus Group designation is the predicate for the FSIA/TRIA claim, and Kelp's challenge to LayerZero's post-mortem (covered separately today) directly attacks the chain of attribution the plaintiffs are relying on. ZachXBT's public accusation of fraudulent filings by Gerstein Harrow adds a credibility dimension that wasn't present in earlier coverage.
New detail on the CCIP migration announced yesterday: Kelp is now citing Dune Analytics data showing 47% of LayerZero OApps run the same 1-of-1 DVN configuration that LayerZero's own documentation recommended — directly contradicting LayerZero CEO Bryan Pellegrino's post-mortem claim that Kelp manually changed away from a multi-DVN default. An external audit is forthcoming. Chainlink CCIP's destination uses 16 independent node operators rather than a single verifier. The dispute is no longer bilateral — Kelp's Dune data frames it as a systemic vulnerability affecting nearly half of LayerZero's OApp ecosystem.
Why it matters
The configuration-blame question is now legally load-bearing in the SDNY case (Lazarus attribution flows from LayerZero's post-mortem), and the Dune data introduces a new fact that wasn't in prior coverage: the contested configuration wasn't a Kelp-specific deviation but a near-majority pattern across LayerZero OApps. If the external audit corroborates Kelp's account, LayerZero's post-mortem collapses as the attribution foundation the TRIA/FSIA plaintiffs are relying on — potentially unwinding the restraining notice's legal predicate entirely.
Kelp frames LayerZero's defaults as the systemic vulnerability; LayerZero frames Kelp's configuration choices as the proximate cause. Independent observers note both can be true and that the deeper failure is governance not requiring multi-party sign-off on security-critical configuration. LayerZero has reportedly stopped validating single-verifier setups going forward — itself a protocol-governance intervention.
At Consensus Miami on May 6, CFTC Chair Michael Selig confirmed the agency will convert the March 17 Phantom Technologies no-action letter into formal binding rules clarifying when non-custodial software developers must register as brokers. Selig also reiterated that prediction markets remain under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction, citing ongoing suits against Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona, Connecticut, and New York. Public comment is expected before end of Q2 2026.
Why it matters
Codification matters because no-action letters are entity-specific, easily reversed, and don't extend automatically to other builders. A formal rule would automatically protect any non-custodial software meeting the eight-condition framework and would survive an administration change. For DAO tooling teams and protocol governance lawyers, this is the most concrete path yet to a defensible 'we're software, not a broker' posture — and it pairs with the SEC's April 13 staff statement on non-custodial UIs to suggest cross-agency alignment under the March 2026 SEC/CFTC MOU.
Industry counsel (Baker Botts, Foley) view this as the single most important regulatory development for the year — durable clarity for U.S. infrastructure builders. State AGs and gaming regulators continue to argue federal preemption strips states of legitimate consumer-protection authority; the Sixth Circuit's contrary Ohio ruling keeps a circuit-split alive that could land at the Supreme Court.
Baker Botts' new analysis of the April 13 SEC staff statement clarifies the five conditions under which non-custodial UI providers for crypto-asset-securities transactions are not required to register as broker-dealers: no solicitation, fixed user-paid fees only, routing solely to registered intermediaries, and others. The statement is non-binding, has a 5-year sunset, and explicitly leaves ATS/exchange registration and custodial-wallet questions unresolved.
Why it matters
Paired with Selig's CFTC rulemaking, this is the clearest sign yet of coordinated agency alignment on the non-custodial software question. For DAO front-end teams and governance interface builders, the five conditions effectively become a compliance checklist. The 5-year sunset and ATS ambiguity, though, mean this is a runway, not a destination — long-term certainty still depends on CLARITY Act passage or formal rulemaking.
The Digital Chamber's April 30 comment letter is pushing for explicit Safe Harbor language covering routine protocol communications. Critics note staff statements bind no one and can be withdrawn without notice — the Phantom-style codification path is structurally stronger.
Senator Bernie Moreno announced Senate lawmakers plan to begin CLARITY Act markup as early as the week of May 11, with the long-stalled stablecoin yield-distribution provision now resolved via a Tillis/Alsobrooks compromise. Chair Tim Scott separately confirmed the committee is 'nearing consensus' for a May markup. President Trump could sign before July 4 if negotiations hold.
Why it matters
CLARITY would be the first comprehensive federal market-structure framework for digital assets, with direct implications for governance-token classification, DAO treasury treatment, and the regulatory perimeter around DeFi protocols. For DAO operators with U.S. exposure, the markup window is the next concrete inflection point — committee text will reveal whether DAO legal-wrapper recognition (DUNA, Wyoming, Marshall Islands) gets affirmative treatment or is left to the agencies.
Industry sees the resolved yield dispute as removing the last major technical obstacle. Skeptics note Memorial Day recess on May 21 compresses the floor-vote window significantly and that prior 'imminent markup' signals have slipped before.
Compliance commentary this week is sharpening the picture for August 2, 2026: full applicability of EU AI Act high-risk and general-purpose AI obligations, including Article 10 data governance, Article 15 robustness/cybersecurity, technical documentation, and post-market monitoring — with extraterritorial reach and fines up to €35M or 7% of global turnover. Practitioners are flagging that GDPR and AI Act obligations now require integrated lineage tracking, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments, and zero-retention or EU-residency options.
Why it matters
For DAO operators running AI agents that touch EU users — treasury bots, governance summarizers, contributor-vetting agents — the August 2 deadline creates a hard liability surface that doesn't care about decentralization claims. Tools like Aevum v0.3.0 (Article 12 audit kernel) and ACTA's privacy layer for ERC-8004 are explicitly engineered against this regime. Expect 'EU-compliant agent' to become a procurement requirement for any DAO with EU contributors or users.
European compliance counsel sees parallel GDPR + AI Act enforcement as the binding constraint. U.S. and Asian agent builders are split between full compliance and EU geofencing.
Verified across 2 sources:
NYSBA(May 6) · Regolo.ai(May 6)
A live Snapshot vote on Gnosis DAO proposes an opt-in redemption mechanism letting GNO holders surrender tokens for pro-rata treasury shares — valued at roughly $170/token versus a $132 market price. The vote has swung twice in 24 hours after co-founder Stefan George and a 67,000-GNO whale cast opposing votes, putting the operating-company-versus-tokenholder treasury claim question directly in front of the DAO.
Why it matters
This is the cleanest test case yet for what happens when a DAO trades persistently below NAV and tokenholders demand the discount close. If the redemption passes, expect a wave of copycat proposals at every DAO whose treasury exceeds market cap (a long list). For DAO operators, the structural lesson is that funded operating entities need explicit governance contracts with the DAO around revenue obligations, expense reporting, and clawback triggers — otherwise tokenholders eventually price in the misalignment and force liquidation.
Co-founder Stefan George argues redemption undermines long-term operating capacity. Activist tokenholders frame it as overdue accountability for a treasury they can't otherwise touch. Variant-style commentators see this as the inevitable end-state for any DAO that didn't design redemption rights upfront.
Decentraland DAO approved a binding governance proposal requiring the DAO Council to deliver a formal 2030 Transition Roadmap before the Decentraland Foundation's vesting contract expires in February 2030. The proposal mandates a town hall within 60 days, a forum thread, and a comprehensive roadmap within 120 days — with named owners, quarterly milestones, and contingency plans for legal entity protection, governance automation, treasury revenue models, and contributor compensation post-Foundation.
Why it matters
Most DAOs with foundation-vesting funding have a hard cliff they're systematically not planning for. Decentraland's binding-deadline approach with named accountability is a transferable governance template — every DAO operator should be running this exercise against their own vesting schedule. The proposal's structure (town hall → forum → binding deliverable with owners) is itself a governance pattern worth stealing.
Community organizers frame this as overdue accountability. The Council faces real execution risk: producing a credible 2030 plan in 120 days is genuinely hard, and missing the deadline creates its own governance crisis.
Following yesterday's initial reporting, new coverage confirms Aave executed governance-approved Recovery Guardian liquidations of attacker rsETH positions on Ethereum and Arbitrum — demonstrating that its pre-authorized AIP emergency mechanism can act faster than a live vote. The Polygon exit consideration, covered yesterday, centers on whether protocols deployed atop a chain have veto rights over chain-level treasury decisions involving bridge-locked funds — a question now unresolved across the multi-chain ecosystem.
Why it matters
Two governance design lessons in one story: (1) Aave's Recovery Guardian — a pre-authorized AIP — is a model for crisis-ops governance that doesn't require waiting for a vote during an attack. (2) The Polygon dispute opens an unsettled question every multi-chain DAO eventually faces: who controls bridge-locked assets, the chain or the protocols depending on them? Expect this to become a standard term in deployment agreements.
Aave argues bridge-locked funds backstop user assets and shouldn't be put at yield-farming risk without protocol consent. Polygon argues chain-level treasury decisions are within validator/foundation purview. Other multi-chain protocols are watching to see whether veto rights become a precedent.
Pyth DAO is executing a 420,000 PYTH on-chain treasury disbursement to seven Community Council members for Term 1 Cycle 2 service (Oct 2025–Mar 2026) — a previously unpaid commitment now being closed out at 60,000 PYTH per member directly to individual wallets.
Why it matters
Small-scale but operationally instructive: how DAOs handle deferred compensation obligations is a real test of governance hygiene. Pyth is doing this transparently with on-chain execution and a forum-documented rationale — the model contrasts with DAOs that quietly let council compensation lapse or fund it through opaque grants. For DAO operators designing council/contributor stipend systems, the OP-PIP-114 thread is worth reading as a template.
Community Council compensation remains contentious across DAOs: too high invites rent-seeking, too low produces turnover. Merit-tested incentive frameworks (Arbitrum's 75% participation threshold, Lido's emerging public delegate platform) are the direction of travel.
Lido received Web3SOC certification from Cantina, a structured third-party assessment covering governance, financial resilience, security, and legal/compliance posture. The framework is designed as an institutional diligence input for protocols evaluating onchain governance — directly supporting institutional stETH adoption across regulated products and custodians.
Why it matters
Web3SOC is the closest thing crypto has to a SOC 2 equivalent for protocol governance. If it gains traction with institutional allocators, it will pull other major DAOs into a documented-control-and-process posture they don't currently have. For DAO operators, watch which protocols pursue certification next — it will create a two-tier 'institutional-ready' versus 'permissionless-only' bifurcation in DeFi.
Lido and Cantina present this as institutional onramp infrastructure. Decentralization purists worry it codifies a particular operating model and disadvantages more experimental governance designs. OpenZeppelin's parallel non-ranking risk assessment framework offers a more flexible alternative.
OpenZeppelin Relayer now supports Zama FHEVM, handling encrypted transaction submission, EIP-712 decryption authorization signing, secure key management, and lifecycle monitoring — without requiring FHEVM-specific network configuration. The integration provides production-grade transaction infrastructure for confidential smart contracts on standard EVM networks.
Why it matters
Confidential voting and private governance state have been theoretically interesting and operationally unworkable. A battle-tested relayer plugging into FHEVM is a meaningful step toward DAOs running secret ballots, sealed-bid governance auctions, or private treasury allocations on-chain without standing up bespoke privacy infrastructure. Worth evaluating against existing Snapshot shielded voting and zk-based alternatives.
Privacy advocates see this as overdue infrastructure. Skeptics note FHE performance overhead remains significant and the threat model for 'who can decrypt' must be governed carefully — confidential voting that a single key-holder can decrypt isn't actually confidential.
In Ropko v. McNeill, the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated a founder's attempt to remove officers via backdated written consent purporting to act on other directors' behalf under a 'vote-in-the-same-manner' voting agreement. The court held such agreements do not constitute proxies absent explicit agency-appointment language and that operating-agreement procedures cannot be excused on futility grounds.
Why it matters
For DAO operators using Delaware LLC wrappers (or evaluating DUNA/Wyoming alternatives), this is an important formality reminder: even when outcomes appear predetermined by token-weighted voting or off-chain agreements, courts will enforce procedural requirements. Snapshot-based governance feeding into on-chain execution should pair with explicit proxy language in any associated legal-wrapper documents — otherwise a disgruntled member can invalidate corporate-layer actions even after the DAO has 'voted.'
Delaware practitioners see this as routine contract-interpretation rigor. DAO legal-wrapper architects flag it as a reason to prefer DUNA or Marshall Islands structures where the relationship between on-chain governance and entity-layer formalities is purpose-built rather than retrofitted.
A Puerto Rico plaintiff sued Coinbase in federal court to recover ~$55M in DAI stolen in an August 2024 DeFi Saver phishing attack, traced through Tornado Cash into a Coinbase retail account. Coinbase froze the funds but is refusing release without a court order — a stance that exposes the procedural gap between blockchain tracing and ownership adjudication on exchange custody.
Why it matters
This case will help clarify what exchanges must do (or not do) when traced stolen assets land in customer accounts. The outcome bears on every protocol with a recovery-and-return process: if exchanges become de-facto adjudicators, recovery accelerates but liability mushrooms; if courts must rule each time, victims wait years. For DAO operators designing recovery flows, this is the procedural backdrop your processes must work within.
Plaintiffs argue exchanges must release traced funds to demonstrable victims. Coinbase's posture is institutional caution — releasing without a court order invites competing-claim litigation. Watch whether the court adopts a 'safe harbor for documented tracing' standard.
Building on yesterday's Søldøgn Interop coverage, Vitalik this week formalized EIP-8250 — a keyed-nonce design (nonce_key, nonce_seq pairs) using sharding and Bloom filters to support up to 500 billion privacy nullifiers over eight years without expanding general state. The proposal is the architectural answer to how Ethereum handles privacy-protocol scale without bloating execution-layer state used by every node.
Why it matters
EIP-8250 is the kind of structural decision DAO operators rarely track but should: it determines whether privacy-preserving governance (shielded voting, confidential treasury operations) is economically viable at L1 scale or gets pushed entirely to L2. Combined with Glamsterdam's 200M gas limit, the direction is clear — Ethereum is making room for privacy primitives in its base architecture rather than treating them as L2-only concerns.
Privacy researchers welcome dedicated nullifier storage. Node-operator advocates worry about specialized storage structures fragmenting client implementations. Final decisions move through AllCoreDevs.
At Consensus Miami, Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko announced Alpenglow — a consensus-layer redesign focused on transaction finality, latency, and reliability rather than raw throughput — could deploy as early as Q2 2026. The announcement compresses the validator-operator preparation window: testnet validation, node upgrade scheduling, and incident playbook updates now move from passive monitoring to active project work.
Why it matters
For protocols and DAOs running validator infrastructure on Solana (or relying on Solana RPC for governance tooling), Alpenglow is a coordination-heavy upgrade with real failure modes if validator subsets lag the rollout. Pay.sh's launch on Solana the same week makes the upgrade economically more consequential — agent payment infrastructure now depends on the consensus change going smoothly.
Validators welcome reduced finality latency. Some DeFi operators are concerned about disruption windows during the rollout and want clearer testnet timelines.
Following yesterday's launch announcement, today's new operational data: approximately 69K agents active, ~$50M cumulative volume, and 50+ third-party API providers connected at launch. The more structurally significant new detail: x402 protocol governance is moving to the Linux Foundation, with Visa, Stripe, and Cloudflare as backers. Cloudflare separately disclosed processing a billion HTTP 402 responses daily — confirming the protocol is already operating at meaningful infrastructure scale, not just demo scale.
Why it matters
The Linux Foundation governance move is the new development that changes the calculus for DAO operators evaluating x402 as a treasury-operations or contributor-payment rail. Yesterday's story established what Pay.sh does; today's development establishes that x402 is being converted from a single-vendor protocol into vendor-neutral infrastructure — which materially lowers integration and reputational risk. The ACTA privacy concern (x402's default transparency creates an agent-graph exposure problem) remains unresolved and is worth flagging in any deployment decision.
Agent-economy builders see Pay.sh's account-less, subscription-less model as the right primitive. Stablecoin issuers see it as adoption tailwind. Privacy researchers (per ACTA) note that x402's default transparency creates an agent-graph exposure problem that anonymous-credential layers are now racing to solve.
An analysis circulating this week maps the agent economy to four converging standards — ERC-8004 (identity), ERC-8183 (commerce/escrow), x402 (payments), and OKX/A2A (agent-to-agent comms) — and identifies the gap they all assume but don't provide: trustless cross-chain settlement with price discovery. HTLC-based atomic swap layers (Hashlock Markets cited as one example) are emerging to fill it.
Why it matters
For DAO operators building agent-mediated treasury operations, this is the right map of the stack: identity and payment are commoditizing, but cross-chain settlement under autonomous agent control is still bespoke. Until trustless settlement primitives mature, agent treasury operations remain bridge-dependent — which, after April's $600M+ in bridge exploits, is a non-trivial governance risk to underwrite.
Builders argue the missing layer is settlement; others argue the missing layer is dispute resolution / arbitration once agents transact at scale. ACTA and ERC-8004 reputation registries are emerging governance answers to the latter.
CoSAI released two new papers — 'Agentic Identity and Access Management' and 'The Future of Agentic Security: From Chatbots to Autonomous Swarms' — introducing intent-based authorization and Agent Detection and Response (ADR) as vendor-neutral primitives. The papers extend traditional IAM to agents operating at machine speed with verifiable identities, audit trails, and governed agent-to-agent interactions.
Why it matters
CoSAI is becoming the de-facto standards body for agent IAM, sitting alongside FIDO Alliance's Mastercard/Google AP2 working groups. For DAO operators planning agent-based governance, the convergence of CoSAI (vendor-neutral IAM frameworks), VeryAI's KYA standard (palm-biometric identity binding), and C1's headless identity infrastructure means the credentialing layer for autonomous treasury actors and agent-delegates is finally coalescing around interoperable standards.
Enterprise security teams welcome the action-level auditability emphasis (echoing Linx Security's findings). Crypto-native builders are watching whether CoSAI primitives will compose with ERC-8004 reputation registries or fragment into a parallel stack.
VeryAI announced AG9, a Know Your Agent (KYA) standard using palm-biometric verification to cryptographically bind AI agents to verified human owners. AG9 integrates with Cloudflare Web Bot Auth, A2A v1.0 Signed Agent Cards, ERC-8004 registries, and Auth0/Entra OBO tokens. Moonpay and Crossmint are early integrators; legitimacy queries return sub-second.
Why it matters
For DAOs facing the inevitable question of 'can agents be delegates, vote, or hold treasury roles,' AG9 offers an answer that doesn't require fully anonymous agents or fully doxxed humans: a verifiable principal-agent chain. Combined with ERC-8004 identity registries, this lets governance frameworks enforce 'one verified human → bounded set of agents' rules — directly attacking the Sybil problem that pure agent governance otherwise creates.
Compliance teams see AG9 as a clean accountability chain. Privacy advocates worry palm-biometric onboarding is incompatible with pseudonymous DAO participation norms. The interoperability with ERC-8004 is the part that matters most for crypto-native adoption.
A peer-reviewed paper in IJFS uses panel regression on 9,964 firm-year observations of Chinese firms referencing DAO-inspired transparency and decentralized governance principles, finding measurable positive relationships with firm valuation metrics.
Why it matters
Most DAO research is theoretical or self-reported. Quantitative empirical work tying decentralization-style disclosure practices to valuation outcomes — even in a non-DAO regulatory context — gives DAO operators a defensible analytical foundation when arguing the case for transparency-first governance to skeptical contributors, foundations, or institutional partners. Worth citing alongside formal-verification work like the new Polkadot GRANDPA safety paper when making the rigor argument.
Mechanism-design researchers welcome empirical validation. Skeptics flag the China sample as possibly idiosyncratic and the 'DAO-inspired' coding as potentially generous.
Stable Protocol's non-backward-compatible v1.3.0 upgrade activates May 13, 2026 at block 24,077,500 (~07:00 UTC), focused on execution safety, EIP-7702 hardening, EVM consistency, and RPC reliability for institutional stablecoin infrastructure. Node operator coordination is mandatory.
Why it matters
Calendar item for any DAO running validators, RPC infrastructure, or stablecoin-dependent treasury operations on Stable. EIP-7702 hardening is the part to watch — it affects smart-account / account-abstraction flows that DAOs increasingly use for delegate operations and contributor payments.
Standard hard-fork coordination dynamics apply: the shorter the prep window, the higher the lagging-validator risk.
Fraud-vs-theft is the new battleground for DeFi asset recovery The Gerstein Harrow plaintiffs' opposition brief in the Aave/Kelp case explicitly recasts the April 18 exploit as fraudulent borrowing rather than theft — a doctrinal move designed to give the attacker legal title and let TRIA/FSIA claims attach. If accepted, it threatens the foundational DeFi legal posture that 'protocols don't control user assets,' and weaponizes protocol terms-of-service against the protocols themselves.
Agent identity is converging on a four-layer stack — but settlement is still missing ERC-8004 (identity), ERC-8183 (job escrow), x402 (payment), and A2A (agent-to-agent) are coalescing as the agent-economy primitives, with VeryAI's KYA palm-biometric standard, C1's headless identity infrastructure, and CoSAI's agentic IAM research all shipping this week. The recurring gap flagged by builders: trustless cross-chain settlement with price discovery underneath the identity layer.
Federal preemption is hardening across crypto-adjacent state law Selig's formal rulemaking plan to codify the Phantom no-action letter, the SEC's parallel April 13 staff statement on non-custodial UIs, and the Arizona/Kalshi permanent injunction all push the same direction: federal agencies are reclaiming jurisdictional turf from state gambling, securities, and money-transmitter regimes — and converting one-off relief into durable rules harder for future administrations to reverse.
DAO governance is being stress-tested by the gap between normal-ops and crisis-ops design April's $600M+ in DeFi exploits exposed that token-weighted voting with sub-15% participation cannot respond at attacker speed. Aave's pre-authorized Recovery Guardian liquidations, Arbitrum's Security Council freeze, and Kelp's emergency CCIP migration all worked because they bypassed normal governance — raising the question of how much 'emergency power' a credibly decentralized org can hold.
Delegate economics are being renegotiated across major DAOs Uniswap's vote to claw back 12.5M UNI from 2022–2023 delegate loans, Lido's formal public delegate platform application thread, Arbitrum's delegate incentive program excluding 19 of 34 participants, and Pyth's overdue Community Council stipend all signal a shift from bootstrap-era handouts to merit-tested, accountability-tied compensation.
What to Expect
2026-05-07—SDNY hearing on Aave's emergency motion to vacate restraining notice on $71M frozen ETH; Arbitrum DAO Snapshot vote on releasing same funds to DeFi United closes.
2026-05-08—Uniswap DAO vote closes on reclaiming 12.5M UNI (~$42M) from Foundation and delegate loans.
Week of 2026-05-11—Senate Banking Committee target window for CLARITY Act markup, with stablecoin-yield compromise now resolved.
2026-05-21—New Arbitrum Security Council members (Lewellen, DZack23, yoav.eth, Certora, bartek.eth, Pablo Sabbatella) take over signing duties, inheriting unresolved $71M legal dispute.
— The Quorum Room
🎙 Listen as a podcast
Subscribe in your favorite podcast app to get each new briefing delivered automatically as audio.
Apple Podcasts
Library tab → ••• menu → Follow a Show by URL → paste