SBF's acquisition encounter obstacles as opportunists attempt to take advantage, Voyager: "You are that opportunist."

SBF stated in a lengthy post on the morning of 7/25 that the halt in the acquisition of Voyager was due to third parties attempting to take advantage and consultants seeking to delay the process to profit from consultation fees.

The unfolding of this incident stemmed from a legal document from Voyager, alleging that FTX was a bargain-hunting acquirer, and that FTX's public proposals and misleading information had severely disrupted the bidding process, leading to the inability to maximize the value of user assets.

Lawyers representing Voyager accuse

Bloomberg cited a legal document in which lawyers representing Voyager pointed out that FTX's proposal is merely a disguised low-ball bid pretending to be a rescuer:

Voyager has engaged with over 80 third parties, buyers, and the public proposal from FTX is highly misleading, aimed at marketing FTX and Alameda, benefiting FTX as the liquidator, rather than creating value for Voyager users.

The lawyers also made the following accusations:

1. Disruption of the bidding process:

The public proposal by FTX has dampened bidding interest, disrupting the bidding process aimed at maximizing value.

2. Limiting the amount of claims:

FTX limits the amount of claims based on the cryptocurrency market price on 7/5, while Voyager's own plan clearly states that there is no "limit" to user claims.

3. Ignoring tax consequences:

FTX requests that user claims be converted to dollars, but ignores potential capital gains and other tax consequences for users.

4. Requiring users to migrate to FTX:

Requiring users to create accounts on FTX imposes additional burdens on Voyager and users in terms of migration, termination costs, etc., and FTX US does not support most of the tokens offered on Voyager, making the process more prone to confusion.

5. Publicly misleading the public:

FTX claims to cancel the $75 million loan provided to Voyager Digital, but this loan structurally belongs to the users.

6. Declaring Voyager's brand and intellectual property as worthless:

FTX claims that Voyager's brand and intellectual property have no value, yet insists on acquiring such assets in the proposal without paying for them, while also offering a lower bid.

Voyager's Statement

The lawyers representing Voyager concluded that in reality, FTX's proposal is an attempt to acquire Voyager's user assets at a discounted price, and the release of entirely false statements and highly misleading press releases in the proposal also violates multiple obligations to creditors and bankruptcy courts.

FTX's actions, openly disrupting and deliberately subverting the bankruptcy process, may have terrifying consequences for maintaining a confidential, competitive bidding process. Their proposal does not maximize value, but since the proposal has been made public, we encourage all creditors and users to carefully review it. The proposal is nothing more than a low-priced proposal disguised as a rescuer that benefits FTX as the liquidator.

SBF's Stance on the Aid Plan

According to the initial proposal, FTX originally planned to work with West Realm Shires Inc., the parent company of FTX US, and Alameda Ventures to provide early liquidity to Voyager Digital users.

However, SBF recently criticized the cumbersome processes of traditional bankruptcy proceedings on Twitter, pointing out that Voyager is facing a cheap acquisition by a third party with ulterior motives, and threats from bankruptcy agents trying to prolong the bankruptcy process to earn hefty consulting fees. He mentioned the following points:

1. Why haven't users retrieved their assets yet?

If Voyager still has 70% of its assets remaining, the first thing should be for users to retrieve this 70% of assets. If any debts can be recovered from 3AC, then the remaining assets should be returned to users.

However, this has not happened. He used Mt. Gox as an example, emphasizing that the bankruptcy liquidation process is a lengthy one; it declared bankruptcy in 2014 and is still coordinating repayment solutions.

2. Interests of bankruptcy agents

SBF pointed out that bankruptcy agents may prolong the bankruptcy process to maximize consulting fees, slowly draining the frozen assets of users through monthly consulting fees, considering that Voyager no longer has a source of income. SBF stated:

If a user has one bitcoin in Voyager, valued at $30,000, would they get back 1 BTC or $30,000 after years of bankruptcy proceedings?

3. Everyone trying to take advantage

If a user has $100 in assets in Voyager, third parties will try to purchase it for $10 to potentially gain access to any remaining assets, possibly $75, with users ultimately receiving only $10.

4. FTX's offer

SBF mentioned that if the offer is accepted, looking at the example above, users could immediately retrieve 75% of their assets. So, who is opposing their proposal?

This includes bankruptcy agents trying to prolong the process to earn hefty consulting fees and third parties attempting to occupy user assets with low bids. He expressed:

I have interests in the process as well, but I am certain that FTX's proposal will block the paths for others to profit. Continuously delaying may make Voyager's equity more valuable, but this comes at the expense of users. Regardless, we hope Voyager users can retrieve their assets as soon as possible; they have suffered enough.