RDX Works has a mission to provide builders with the tools they need to replace traditional financial systems with a highly interconnected network of user-first DeFi apps and assets. These tools are built on top of the Radix public ledger, a record of all transactions that have ever occurred on the Radix Public Network.
RDX Works describes Radix DLT as the only decentralized network where developers can build quickly without the constant threat of exploits and hacks. It is designed to reward every improvement and aims to never be a bottleneck in terms of scale.
Instapass is designed to make compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations simple for DeFi users, protocols, and applications1.
This tool is intended to simplify the process of moving crypto assets between different financial ecosystems.
GoodFi is a not-for-profit initiative that aims to make entering the world of DeFi as easy as possible. Its members include Aave, Sushiswap, Avalanche, and others.
2019/12/13 - Mr R Olsen vs Radix DLT Limited (2202365)
Robert Olsen presented a claim of unfair dismissal against Radix DLT Limited. Following an early conciliation period, the claimant initially had legal representation. However, by 31 October 2019, the firm of solicitors that represented the claimant ceased to act for him. Subsequently, the respondent's response was sent directly to the claimant's email. Despite the respondent's numerous attempts to engage with the claimant, they faced challenges with communication, as the claimant was largely unresponsive.
On 29 November 2019, Mr Olsen sent a communication to the tribunal stating that his legal representation had abandoned him and requested an extension. There was no response from the tribunal to this request.
Ms G Leadbetter, representing the respondent, made an application during the hearing on 13 December 2019 to dismiss the claimant's case under rule 47 of the tribunal rules, which states that a case may be dismissed if a party fails to attend or represent themselves. The respondent posited that the claimant might be in Dubai, attending a conference, based on information from a mutual contact. Further, while the claimant did not communicate with the respondent's solicitors, he did maintain sporadic social media contact with the respondent's director.
Employment Judge E Burns confirmed no other correspondence from the claimant had been overlooked and subsequently chose to exercise discretion under rule 47. The judge concluded that there was a pattern of non-engagement by the claimant, asserting that the claimant's absence was voluntary and indicative of his lack of interest in pursuing his claim. Consequently, the claim was dismissed.