Celsius' latest bankruptcy court hearing sets stage for future decisions

THE BLOCKPublicado a 2022-09-02Actualizado a 2022-09-02

Resumen

The latest hearing in lender Celsius' Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is setting the stage for future key decisions.

The latest hearing in lender Celsius' Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is setting the stage for future key decisions, but little tangible action was accomplished on key issues today.
The hearing came just hours after Celsius' counsel filed a motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the authority to open withdrawals for specific custody and withhold accounts. That request won't be settled until an Oct. 6 hearing, but various parties still gave feedback for a significant portion of the three-hour hearing.
The motion indicates that Celsius has discerned that the funds are not part of the estate, meaning they should be released to the custodial account holders. However, there is contention about who qualifies.
It has discerned assets in the Earn and Borrow programs belong to the estate per the terms of service. Celsius says it has not yet completed the necessary analysis to discern if certain custody customers, such as those who transferred funds from the firm's Earn and Borrow programs, qualify. Counsel for Celsius customers is requesting the relief go to all holders of custody accounts. 
Celsius called the current, narrowed request "phase one" and said it's possible they will seek to release all the funds in the future. 
"While today’s motion, which will be considered at a later hearing, would apply only to a certain group of customers, we are preparing to address matters related to all customers as we move ahead. We continue to pursue all available avenues as quickly as possible," Celsius said in a tweet after the hearing.
What's in a name?
Judge Martin Glenn also considered whether to redact information about Celsius creditors, but ultimately kicked the decision to the upcoming Sept. 14 hearing. Celsius counsel is seeking to redact all identifiable information from the public docket, but Glenn made it clear he's opposed to the idea of allowing creditors to be fully anonymous.
"I'm not going to allow anonymous proofs of claim, I can tell you right now," he said.
Usually, creditors must be identifiable in order to lodge claims, but Celsius argues disclosing this information could leave its customers vulnerable to cyber threats since this case deals heavily in the crypto sector, where hacks and digital theft are common. Celsius would prefer creditors volunteer this information to be made public in order to prove their claims in court rather than having that information automatically on the public docket, as is usual in the bankruptcy process.
Although Glenn said he'd be amenable to sealing other information, like email and home addresses, at this time he believes the names should be public.
"While I'm not ruling today, I want to make clear I have the strongest reservations about not requiring the disclosure of the names," he said. "I think addresses, home addresses, email addresses is a completely different matter. I'm very sensitive to that issue, so I want to give the parties who've addressed this issue in their papers to try and see whether they can reach a consensual resolution of it."
The remaining agenda
Glenn also approved an interim motion related to cash management, but larger questions surrounding cash management, including the safety and storage of assets, will come to a head on Oct. 6.
Celsius disclosed it will receive another $61 million back from a loan due to a technicality, allowing the funds to be returned in cash rather than stablecoins, as was originally thought. This relieves some pressure on the estate, which previously reported it could run out of cash as soon as October. 
Glenn also granted the de minimis asset sale motion, a point of contention at the previous second-day hearing. At the time, the U.S. Trustee argued it was unclear which assets Celsius was looking to sell, calling Glenn's attention to the vagueness of the request. Now, the parties have reached an agreement in which Celsius will consult with other parties before the sale of the assets. 
Glenn also approved the sealing of certain parties that have signed non-disclosure agreements in the bidding process and an extension for Celsius to file their schedules and statements. 

Lecturas Relacionadas

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 2 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 2 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片