by Insolvent Crypto Lender ‘Celsius’ Claims Ownership of Customer Deposits in Court
When deeply indebted crypto lender Celsius filed for bankruptcy last week, it was well known that the company had taken enormous risks with user deposits.
Now, in an astounding twist, Celsius’ lawyers have laid claim to most of these deposits, arguing that they were theirs all along:
11) Celsius says that anyone in the EARN program has no crypto that belongs to them (i.e., stop thinking of it as *your* crypto). Celsius is the owner of the crypto assets. Most of the assets in Celsius came in through the EARN program and is part of the estate.
— David Silver (SILVER MILLER) (@dcsilver) July 18, 2022
Writing on the Wall
Prior to Celsius declaring bankruptcy, a report by The Wall Street Journal found that the lender carried more than twice the risk of a traditional bank, reflected in an assets-to-equity ratio of 19:1, compared to the median of North American banks, which is closer to 9:1.
Put differently, Celsius had more than double the liabilities of a traditional bank, making it intrinsically more risky. Couple that with a business model predicated on material leverage and one is left with little margin for error when the tide turns (as the crypto market has in 2022).
At the time, many were ringing the alarm bells, with one prominent crypto sceptic commenting in a piece titled “Why Celsius Network’s depositors won’t get their money back”:
Celsius is not an asset manager, it’s a shadow bank. And deposits in banks aren’t even ‘customer assets’, let alone ‘assets under management’. Celsius’ terms of use make it completely clear that customers who deposit funds in its interest-bearing accounts are lending their funds to Celsius to do with as it pleases. And it specifically says that in the event of bankruptcy, customers might not get all – or indeed any – of their money back.
Frances Coppola, financial journalist
Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins
Unfortunately for Celsius customers, Coppola’s assessment appears to have largely hit the mark, at least according to arguments being made by the Celsius legal team.
Three key segments of Celsius’ retail business were identified – “Earn”,
Borrow”, and “Custody”. Of these, 77 percent were in the “Earn” program, whereas just 4 percent were in the “Custody” program. In the case of insolvency, these differences are significant.
In terms of the company’s terms and conditions, “Earn” users effectively handed over ownership of their crypto to Celsius, who seemingly could do as it wished. Specifically, the wording provided that: “title to coins is transferred to Celsius, and Celsius is entitled to use, sell, pledge, and rehypothecate those coins”.
While the position of “Borrow” users is unclear, “Custody” users are said to retain ownership in their crypto, which sadly accounts for just 4 percent of users.
Attorney David Silver offered a scathing account of day one in Celsius’ insolvency proceedings, commenting:
Today was the First Day hearing for the @CelsiusNetwork bankruptcy. I want to take a shower after having listened. Celsius blamed everyone except itself. Celsius has pivoted in how it describes itself, from banking the unbanked to basically being a bitcoin mining company. #ComeOn pic.twitter.com/cWpHzppvll
— David Silver (SILVER MILLER) (@dcsilver) July 18, 2022
Creative destruction is inevitable in all free markets, which necessarily entails pain (and, hopefully, some useful lessons for the future). Arguably, one of the key takeaways from this cycle is that the benefits of yield programs were vastly overstated, and the risks significantly misunderstood and understated.
Disclaimer:
The content and views expressed in the articles are those of the original authors own and are not necessarily the views of Crypto News. We do actively check all our content for accuracy to help protect our readers. This article content and links to external third-parties is included for information and entertainment purposes. It is not financial advice. Please do your own research before participating.