Same Name, Different Company: Blockstream Addresses $6.7M River Lawsuit

River’s $6.7 Million Lawsuit

On Sept. 11, a San Francisco bitcoin steadfast walked into national tribunal and sued a company inactive wearing the Blockstream sanction for $6.7 million. Fifteen days later, Blockstream Corp, led by Adam Back and creators of the Liquid Network, posted a connection that work similar a disclaimer aft the fact.

The quality follows the Liquid Network breach, which saw astir 4,000 BTC siphoned from the protocol earlier this period connected Sept. 6. The attackers gave 3,400 BTC backmost but inactive person not returned astir 600 BTC, contempt Blockstream’s demands.

The Canada and U.S. services units, it said, person not been nether its ownership, power oregon absorption since mid-2024. They kept the marque nether license. The nationalist spin-out of Blockstream Mining was announced successful April 2025. River’s ailment names Blockstream Services Canada ULC, not the parent.

A Bill With the Wrong Famous Name

River Financial’s complaint, filed successful the Northern District of California, alleges breach of a termination agreement. River says the woody called for $3.55 cardinal successful prepaid refunds and a $3.15 cardinal early-termination payment. First-pass headlines connected societal media flattened the suspect into “Blockstream.” Some crypto outlets connected X aboriginal corrected the record. This is due to the fact that the sued steadfast is Blockstream Services Canada ULC, a mining relation that present runs arsenic an autarkic company. Bitcoin.com News reported connected the mining institution spin-off successful May 2025.

Blockstream’s Statement

On Sept. 26, Blockstream Corp posted this connection successful full:

“Since mid-2024, Blockstream Services USA and Blockstream Services Canada person not been nether the ownership, control, oregon absorption of Blockstream Corp. The businesses were spun retired arsenic portion of the Blockstream Mining concern and person since operated arsenic abstracted companies, with nary shared equity ownership oregon absorption with Blockstream Corp. Following the separation, they retained the Blockstream sanction for a constricted play nether a marque licensing agreement.”

Here’s the caveat. That mid-2024 day sits astir a twelvemonth earlier the April 2025 announcements that introduced Blockstream Mining arsenic a recently autarkic company, with erstwhile mining president Chris Cook arsenic CEO. The Blockstream Mining marque stayed connected the door. Blockstream’s connection caught immoderate flak from the community. “Misleading users by licensing your sanction to companies for wealth has a downside. Welcome to that downside,” one idiosyncratic wrote.

Another idiosyncratic added:

“Two years later, you felt was the close clip to fto everyone know?”

Same Name, Different Company

Blockstream did not explicate wherefore the bitcoin mining steadfast retained its licensed sanction and lone clarified the statement aft online reports claimed Blockstream itself had been sued. If the separation occurred erstwhile the genitor says it did, questions stay astir however galore counterparties continued penning checks nether the Blockstream sanction aft the 2 businesses had parted ways. On the different hand, immoderate observers thanked Blockstream for publically clarifying the situation.

“Good to person this connected the record, a batch of radical were inactive assuming the mining entities were tied straight to Corp,” one idiosyncratic wrote connected X.

The treatment comes 4 days aft the institution published a “technical information appraisal of the September 6 Liquid incident.” The Liquid Network study examines the underlying method failure, chronicles the effect timeline, and outlines a bid of corrective measures, including stricter remediation standards, regular codification reviews, adversarial testing, and an expanded bug bounty program, designed to forestall akin incidents successful the future.

Still, it offers nary timetable for restoring the L-BTC to BTC peg-outs.