According to the Foundation, the SEC expert’s assertion that its testnet version lacks critical components was “incorrect” citing the reason that he failed to reconstruct the consensus protocol and could not verify that the code represents the final version of the protocol.
“Prof. Herlihy either misread or misunderstood the TON Blockchain code…, according to the Foundation. It also noted that he “lost sight of the fact that Telegram itself had been a target of the Russian state and survived the attacks.”
In conclusion, the Foundation asked the Court to reject the SEC expert’s “unfounded” academic opinions that “contradicted by past experiences and quite dangerous to future innovations.”
