Conversation

2) Let's say that Voyager has, remaining, 75% of assets (I don't know the exact number). It seems like the first thing that should happen is that customers get back the 75%, and then later get back the rest if anything is recovered from 3AC. But that hasn't happened yet. Why?

732

3) Well, the *traditional* process is that before customers get their assets back, they get fucked. First, there's a long, drawn out process, during which funds are frozen. It can take years. Remember Mt. Gox? That process is *still going on*.

971

4) Meanwhile, that entire time, various bankruptcy agents are slowly bleeding the customer's frozen assets dry with consulting fees. This can cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars by the time all is said and done. And, finally, there's an imbedded option.

726

5) See, if a customers had 1 BTC on the platform, and BTC was worth $30k... and then it takes years to go through bankruptcy... what do they get back? 1 BTC, or $30k? Probably, whichever is worth less. So the longer the process drags out, the more optionality customers lose.

730

6) So, what's going on with Voyager? Well, lots of parties were trying to bid $0.10 on the dollar for the assets. If a customer had $100 on the platform, a third party would pay $10 for it, get whatever funds remained (maybe $75), and then the customer... gets back $10.

547

7) And meanwhile, Voyager's consultants would be slowly draining the remaining funds by charging fees every month the bankruptcy process dragged on. This didn't seem right to us. Customers already lost assets; we didn't want them to lose more.

629

8) So we submitted an offer: If accepted, any customer who wanted could come and get back their share of everything that remained, as soon as possible. So the customer above would get back $75 immediately, *and* retain their claim in case more was recovered from 3AC.

940

9) It would let customers--if they chose--get the remaining assets back right away, with no fees or additional haircut.

561

10) So, who's against our offer? Well, it was voluntary--customers wouldn't have to use it! But there are parties that *would* lose from it: third parties who want to take some of the customer assets as fees.

649

12:32 AM · Jul 25, 2022Twitter Web App

11) The consultants, for instance, likely want the bankruptcy process to drag out as long as possible maximizing their fees. Our offer would let people claim assets quickly. Or people who wanted to submit a lower bid--taking a large share of customer assets in the middle.

Replying to

12) As a disclaimer, I also have a stake in this process, but I'm pretty sure our offer hurts the stake; there's a chance equity in Voyager would be worth more (at the cost of customers) if the process drags out. But equity holders aren't who matter right now; customers are.

699

13) Anyway: in the end, we think Voyager's customers should have the right to quickly claim their remaining assets if they want, without rent seeking in the middle. They've been through enough already.

1,276

14 p.s. to clarify: our offer would give Voyager customers back 100% of the remaining assets that Voyager has, including claims on anything recovered in the future.

118

980