The erroneously revealed documents show that Blockfi’s exposure to bankrupt crypto-currency firm FTX was larger than the company had previously disclosed.
Unredacted documents reveal Blockfi’s exposure to FTX and Alameda Research to the tune of $1.2 billion.
It appears that Blockfi had far more money tied up in FTX and Alameda Research than was initially suggested by the company. A CNBC article indicates that unredacted documents were mistakenly sent to the bankruptcy court, revealing that Blockfi had $415.9 million tied to FTX, and about $831.3 million in loans to Alameda Research.
Blockfi’s most recent filing shows that $1.2 billion would be tied to both FTX and Alameda, both of which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. When Blockfi’s bankruptcy case began in New Jersey, attorneys initially cited loans to Alameda amounting to about $671 million, with an additional $355 million reportedly tied up in the FTX exchange. Blockfi halted withdrawals on November 10, 2022, one day before FTX filed for bankruptcy.
2) @BlockFi is an independent business entity. We have a $400MM line of credit from https://t.co/rFQz2hySwu (not https://t.co/oVC3gZQ6lb) and will remain an independent entity until at least July 2023.
– Flori Marquez (@FounderFlori) November 8, 2022
Two days before the break, the co-founder of Blockfi, Flori Marquez told the cryptographic community that “Blockfi is an independent commercial entity” in the midst of the FTX drama. It further stated that Blockfi had a “line of credit of $400 million with [FTX US] (not FTX.com) and will remain an independent entity until at least July 2023“. Less than a month later, Blockfi filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the state of New Jersey.
CNBC further reports that Blockfi still has 125 staff members and that a total of $11.9 million will be collected on an annualized basis. In addition, five top Blockfi executives still earn $822,000 for the year, according to a presentation designed by M3 Partners. CNBC’s MacKenzie Sigalos reached out to Blockfi, but the company “did not respond to a request for comment“