I did so no one else has to waste their morning, if anyone wants the actual court docs DM me: “**The case:** Applied Quanta bought Subnet 90 in April 2025 for ~$50k, built DegenPredict and the DGEN token on it, got deregistered in December, and sued three Bittensor developers for 15 counts and $75M treble damages in E.D. Cal. **Where it stands:** Motions to dismiss filed June 17 on both 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), with sworn declarations from all three defendants. Plaintiff couldn't oppose them and instead asked for jurisdictional discovery on the eve of its deadline, then served 60 RFPs and 18 interrogatories including who's funding the defense. Briefing closes September 30. Expect discovery narrowed, jurisdiction likely granted to defendants, dismissal without prejudice. **Why it fails legally:** No personal jurisdiction over three non-residents who never contacted the plaintiff. The MIT license authorizes the code modification, gutting CFAA, conversion and tortious interference. No false statement attributable to any named defendant. Damages of $50–100M for a pre-revenue business with an observed market of $60–120k. And he never sued OTF — if he were actually going after TAO he'd have sued the Opentensor Foundation, the entity his own complaint names as creating and controlling the network. It's not like they're hiding. **Why it fails technically:** Deregistration predates dTAO, was disabled at dTAO launch, reintroduced by a public July 2025 proposal. It fires automatically at the 128-subnet cap, removing the lowest-EMA non-immune subnet. SN90 was four months past its four-month immunity when it was displaced. 21 of 128 slots were recycled the same way in one 406-day sample. The $60k appears to be the incoming registrant's burn cost to the protocol, and the mechanism refunds lock cost minus emissions taken. **The honest reading:** he bought during a documented pause in a documented mechanism, mistook that pause for permanence out of technical ignorance, attempted to build a consumer business and a token on a dependency he didn't control, underperformed on the one metric that transparently governed displacement, got displaced by design, and then sued three individual developers for $75 million over a $50,000 slot.” Spiteful.