Two of Denver’s early bitcoin diehards have turned what used to be a tight-knit friendship into a high-stakes legal brawl that could be worth roughly $25 million. James Hilliard and Michael Dupree, once collaborators in the city’s bitcoin community, are now locked in a fight over a January 2018 document that one side says records a 69.8-bitcoin loan. The dispute has been pushed into arbitration and has also landed in the Denver District Court, as both men ask officials to decide whether the paper is a legitimate contract or a fake.
According to BusinessDen, a six-page contract dated Jan. 8, 2018, appears to memorialize a loan of 69.8 bitcoins from Hilliard to EasyBit, and Hilliard’s attorneys say Dupree has not repaid any of it. A demand filed with the American Arbitration Association seeks about $7.8 million for the bitcoin principal plus roughly $16.4 million in interest and a 5% premium, for a total claim of around $25.4 million. Dupree, through counsel, calls the contract a fabrication and has asked Denver District Judge Heidi Kutcher to hold an evidentiary hearing to dig into what he says is fraud.
EasyBit, the bitcoin ATM operator at the center of the clash, traces its commercial presence back to the mid 2010s. Trademark records list the EASYBIT mark with a first use in commerce in 2014 and show it registered to an entity tied to Dupree, according to Justia Trademarks. Around the same time, industry coverage chronicled EasyBit rolling out bitcoin ATMs across several states, a buildout that created the liquidity demands Hilliard says led to repeated short term bitcoin loans to the company, per Finance Magnates.
What Each Side Says
In an affidavit, Hilliard says he loaned bitcoin to EasyBit multiple times in 2015 and 2016 and that the January 2018 document simply formalized one of those loans. He says he repeatedly pressed Dupree for repayment and got nowhere.
Dupree’s legal team tells a very different story. They claim the signature on the 2018 contract was lifted from an older document, then pasted onto the disputed agreement. Dupree also says he has video that shows the two men together all day on Jan. 8, 2018, which he argues proves he did not sign the contract on that date. Those dueling narratives, along with the underlying filings, are detailed in BusinessDen.
Why Arbitration Matters
The venue fight is not just legal fine print. If the case stays in arbitration, courts can overturn an arbitration award only on narrow grounds such as fraud, bias, or an arbitrator stepping outside their authority. That means the choice between a private arbitrator and a public courtroom could shape both the potential payout and how much of this feud ever sees daylight.
Arbitration has already produced multi-million dollar outcomes in other ATM related disputes, which is one reason parties in the bitcoin teller machine world pay close attention to where they end up. Practice guides and commentary point out that arbitration is often quicker and more confidential than a state court lawsuit, but comes with much tighter limits on appeal, as explained by Chambers and Law360.
Dupree has asked Judge Kutcher to hold an evidentiary hearing, while Hilliard is pushing to keep the matter in arbitration. For now, the procedural jockeying may decide whether this Mile High crypto drama plays out behind closed doors or in open court. Both men are still prominent in Denver’s crypto scene, and the case is likely to move in fits and starts as lawyers chase early wins on process before anyone gets to a hearing on the merits. Expect any developments to show up either in Denver court records or in filings with the American Arbitration Association in the coming weeks.
