Alameda sent $4.1B of FTT tokens to FTX before crash: Nansen report
Blockchain data analysts from Nansen have revisited the days leading up to the collapse of FTX, including the transfer of $4.1 billion worth of FTT tokens between the exchange and Alameda Research.
A Nansen report shared with Cointelegraph reveals unique observations from the blockchain analytics firm, highlighting the close relationship between the two companies founded by Sam Bankman-Fried as the former FTX CEO appears in court to face a litany of charges relating to the collapse of the exchange.
The collapse of FTX is widely reported to have been sparked by initial reports that flagged the significant 40% share of Alameda’s $14.6 billion in assets held in FTT tokens in September 2022.
Nansen analysts revealed that they had observed dubious on-chain interactions between FTX and Alameda before these reports came to light. Between Sept. 28 and Nov. 1, Alameda sent $4.1 billion FTT tokens to FTX and several continuous transfers of United States dollar-pegged stablecoins amounting to $388 million.
On-chain data also indicated that FTX held around 280 million FTT tokens (80%) of the total 350 million FTT supply. Blockchain data reflects “considerable” proportions of FTT trading volume amounting to billions of dollars flowing between various FTX and Alameda wallets.
Nansen also highlights that most of the FTT token supply, consisting of company tokens and unsold non-company tokens, was locked in a three-year vesting contract. The lone beneficiary of the contract is an Alameda-controlled wallet, according to the analysts.
Given that the two companies controlled around 90% of the FTT token supply, Nansen suggests that the entities were able to prop up each other’s balance sheets.
The report also suggests that Alameda most likely sold FTT tokens over-the-counter, as well as for collateral for loans from cryptocurrency lending firms.
“This theory is backed by historical on-chain data where we observed regular large inflows and outflows between FTX, Alameda and Genesis Trading wallets with transfer volumes up to $1.7 billion as seen in Dec 2021.”
The collapse of the Terra ecosystem and subsequent bankruptcy of Three Arrows Capital (3AC) likely led to liquidity issues for Alameda due to the drop in value of FTT, which led to a covert, $4 billion FTT-backed loan from FTX.
“Our on-chain data indicates that this may have happened. Amidst the collapse of 3AC in mid-June 2022, Alameda sent ~163m of FTT to FTX wallets, worth ~$4b at that time.”
The researchers claim that the $4 billion transaction volume coincided with a $4 billion loan figure that close associates of Bankman-Fried had divulged in an interview with Reuters.
Blockchain data also reflects how Alameda would not have been able to make good on an offer to buy FTT tokens from Binance at $22 on Nov. 6. This was after Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao announced that the exchange would offload its tokens following disparaging reports about Alameda’s balance sheet.
Magazine: Blockchain detectives: Mt. Gox collapse saw birth of Chainalysis
After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.
Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?
How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?
We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.
Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike