FTX 赔偿在即:获赔或不足四分之一,股东“插队”分配 2.3 亿美元

链捕手Published on 2024-09-30Last updated on 2024-09-30

作者:Felix, PANews

 

近日,FTX破产案最新进展引发加密社区部分人士的争辩和恐慌,先有债权人可能只会获得其资产的10-15%,股东“强行抢先”债权人分配2.3亿美元资产;后有谣言称,FTX将于9月30日开始向债权人和客户分配偿还资金,FTX的FTT代币在24小时内上涨超80%,最高一度涨至2.71美元,现报2.14美元。

新修订的破产文件惹众怒

此前根据获得债权人“压倒性初步支持”的FTX破产计划,98%的债权人将以现金形式获得至少118%的债权价值。

然而9月28日,FTX债权人代表Sunil Kavuri在X平台披露最新修订的破产文件,退款金额以FTX提交申请时加密货币的价值为准,因此债权人实际上将获得“其加密货币的10%至25%的回报”。比如,当时比特币仅约为1.6万美元。

这一决定让许多债权人感到失望,甚至引发FTX债权人的愤怒。

Sunil Kavuri声称:“债务人、美国司法部和法官Kaplan证实,加密货币持有者在申请日时并未得到补偿。许多FTX用户继续遭受精神困扰、恐慌症、离婚和自杀念头,因为他们的毕生积蓄被盗,财产仍未归还”。

绝大多数FTX债权人都赞同Kavuri的观点。一位用户表示: “投票后这么晚才把这偷偷塞进计划,真是令人恶心。”另一位FTX债权人评论道:“我不明白为什么法律不能保护我们投资者”,并将FTX的倒闭描述为一场骗局。一位FTX债权人评论道:“可耻,我们被骗了两次”。

FTX将从政府没收收益中拨出2.3亿美元给股东

一波未平一波又起,让事情变得更加棘手的是,根据一项新披露的协议,由Sullivan和Cromwell律师牵头的FTX Estate将把政府没收行动所得收益的18%捐给一个专项基金,用于“独家受益”某些股东,总额最高可达2.3亿美元。尽管该协议于8月28日正式执行,比债权人对计划进行投票的最后期限晚了近两周,但协议直到9月27日才公布,这也是遗产被允许提交修订计划的最后一天。

许多债权人称此举不仅不公平,而且考虑到他们遭受的巨大财务损失,甚至是“犯罪行为”。因为在破产程序中,债权人通常在股东之前获得偿付,而当他们在8月16日投票截止日期之前以压倒性多数投票通过该计划时,他们并不知道有这项条款。

但文件中称:“债务人和优先股股东各自都希望避免与计划和没收收益相关的诉讼所产生的成本、费用和延误。”

FTX偿还资金将在9月30日开始系谣言

值得一提的是,社交媒体上甚至有传言称,FTX将于9月30日开始向债权人和客户分配偿还资金。FTT代币随之大涨。但后经查证,该言论为谣言,因为偿还计划尚未得到法院的批准,需等待听证会确认。

FTX重组计划的确认听证会目前定于美东时间10月7日10:00举行,届时美国特拉华州破产法院法官John Dorsey将决定是否批准该计划。如果法院确认了该计划,将允许FTX依照2022年11月11日加密资产的美元价格向超过98%的客户和无担保债权人“全额带息”赔款。

根据债权人代表Sunil Kavuri在X平台的披露,大约有55亿美金索赔来自非加密用户,预计以后不会再投资加密货币。索赔金额低于5万美元的索赔人可能会在2024年底前开始获得分配,而索赔金额大于5万美元的索赔人可能要到2025年第一或第二季度才能获得分配。

Related Reads

Large Language Models Ace All Exams, Yet Move Farther from AGI: What Does This Paper Reveal?

The article discusses the ongoing challenge of defining and achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It notes that industry leaders have set vague, often profit- or time-based benchmarks for AGI, while the concept itself lacks a consensus definition—a situation the article compares to a "Rorschach test." It highlights a recent 2025 paper by researcher Michael Timothy Bennett, who proposes a new, measurable definition. Bennett frames AGI not as mimicking human performance on tests, which current large language models (LLMs) have already mastered, but as an "artificial scientist." A true AGI, according to this view, should be able to widely and efficiently adapt to new environments and tasks within real-world constraints (like computational and energy limits), focusing on the *discovery of new knowledge* rather than the replication of existing data. The author contrasts this with the current dominant approach of "scale-maxing"—massively scaling up data, parameters, and compute. While powerful, this method leads to models that fail on out-of-distribution problems and lack core intelligent abilities: they are passive learners, cannot reason causally, and cannot actively experiment or balance exploration with exploitation. The article argues that Bennett's framework offers a crucial shift. It makes AGI a quantifiable engineering problem and proposes new evaluation "adaptation benchmarks" that test an AI's ability to actively learn in novel scenarios. The conclusion is that achieving AGI will require a fundamental reset—a fusion of multiple methodologies beyond simple scaling, moving AI from mimicking patterns to embodying the scientific spirit of inquiry and discovery.

marsbit13m ago

Large Language Models Ace All Exams, Yet Move Farther from AGI: What Does This Paper Reveal?

marsbit13m ago

Pope Issues First AI Encyclical: 40,000 Words, 10 Key Points, Clarifying AI Anxiety

Pope Leo XIV's historic encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas," released in May 2026, marks the Catholic Church's first major document addressing artificial intelligence. The 40,000-word text moves beyond theological abstraction to confront practical AI anxieties affecting society. It argues that AI is no longer a mere tool but an embedded environment influencing daily decisions in areas like employment, healthcare, justice, and information, often without users' awareness. The encyclical presents ten core concerns. It highlights that the central issue isn't just regulation, but who holds the underlying *power*—control over data, compute, and platforms—often concentrated in private entities. It warns that even developers cannot fully explain AI systems, creating accountability gaps. While AI can simulate human interaction and creativity, it cautions against treating it as a moral agent capable of bearing true responsibility or forming genuine relationships. Key risks identified include AI's role in opaque decision-making for jobs or welfare, the amplification of persuasive disinformation, and the potential for education to focus on tool use over critical thinking. The document stresses that work has value beyond efficiency, and AI should enhance human capabilities, not merely replace roles. It firmly states that irreversible decisions, especially involving life and death, must remain under human judgment. Ultimately, the encyclical frames AI's challenge as anthropological, not just technological. As AI simulates uniquely human capacities like judgment and creation, it forces a re-examination of what makes human action meaningful: our capacity for responsibility, vulnerability, and bearing real consequences. The Pope concludes that technology is never neutral; its development and deployment are shaped by human values and choices, making an inclusive, ethically grounded dialogue essential for its future.

marsbit19m ago

Pope Issues First AI Encyclical: 40,000 Words, 10 Key Points, Clarifying AI Anxiety

marsbit19m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片