The commercial dispute
Blockstream, Thigmotropism and Adam Back sought compensation for defective mining equipment. Two groups of contracts named identically named Innosilicon companies registered in China and Samoa. The Chinese company denied being bound by the second group. The Hong Kong HKIAC tribunal rejected its jurisdictional objection and awarded the monetary value of 1,871.61 BTC; the final principal amounts totalled USD 25,816,988.34.
Jurisdiction and the party bound by the agreement
The 26 May 2026 decision examined the arbitrator’s authority to determine jurisdiction, the respondent’s litigation of that issue in arbitration and the prior Chinese court decision on the clause’s binding effect. The US court declined to revisit that issue in the respondent’s favour. Its central inquiry concerned this company’s commitment to the chosen mechanism, not the general legality of all cryptocurrency transactions.
Enforcement and the absence of annulment power
The enforcement petition was granted; the respondent’s objections and annulment motion were rejected. The court separately explained that, because the seat was Hong Kong, the United States was a secondary jurisdiction and could not annul the award. Refusal of recognition and annulment at the seat are distinct mechanisms. Its discussion of the US annulment deadline does not displace that independent distinction.
The monetary judgment and the appeal
The 13 July 2026 final judgment stated USD 28,602,677.33 including arbitration costs and accrued interest. The 26-1705 appeal docket records an appeal; the available entries do not establish its outcome. This is not a universally approved BTC valuation method confirmed through every appellate stage. The comparative guide explains the distinction from Gao Zheyu.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.