Apparently, Voyager Digital is out of the woods. The company ran into liquidity issues when Three Arrows Capital failed to pay a huge loan to them. Welcome to another chapter of the crypto death spiral caused by the Terra\/ Luna collapse. Who came to the rescue this time? Sam Bankman-Fried\u2019s other company, Alameda Ventures. Is this man bailing out crypto or is he taking total control of the industry?<\/p>\n
In a recent press release, Voyager Digital announced that it \u201centered into a definitive agreement with Alameda Ventures Ltd. related to the previously disclosed credit facility, which is intended to help Voyager meet customer liquidity needs during this dynamic period.\u201d That\u2019s one way of putting it. The company received \u201cUS$200 million cash and USDC revolver and a 15,000 BTC revolver.\u201d<\/p>\n
This morning, we announced a definitive agreement with Alameda Ventures for a $200 million dollar cash \/ USDC revolver and a 15,000 BTC revolver.<\/p>\n
Read today\u2019s release: https:\/\/t.co\/8wPfzcaI6K<\/p>\n
\u2014 Voyager (@investvoyager) June 22, 2022<\/p>\n\n
As a reminder, yesterday transpired that FTX, also owned by Bankman-Fried, bailed out BlockFi with $250M. At the time, we described the situation as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cOver the last few weeks, the crypto market has been trending down. The contagion effect of the Terra\/ Luna extinction event rocked every company out there, most of all those who offered yield on cryptocurrency deposits like BlockFi and Celsius and hedge funds like Three Arrows Capital. These companies\u2019 problems and possible liquidation of assets, in turn, sent the crypto market into even more turmoil.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Voyager case fits right into that description.<\/p>\n
Sam Bankman-Fried\u2019s Loan To Voyager, The Conditions<\/p>\n
The rumors were already flying. On June 16th, analyst Dylan LeClair tweeted \u201cSpeculation here, but in its quarterly report, Voyager had loaned $320m to a singapore based entity named \u201ccounterparty b\u201d. One has to wonder whether \u201ccounterparty b\u201d was 3AC and if so, how much of a hit Voyager took?\u201d The answer came quicker than anyone thought.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Speculation here, but in its quarterly report, Voyager had loaned $320m to a singapore based entity named “counterparty b”.<\/p>\n
One has to wonder whether “counterparty b” was 3AC and if so, how much of a hit Voyager took? $VOYG shares are down 33% over the last two days\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/sCiYskwLEq<\/p>\n
\u2014 Dylan LeClair (@DylanLeClair_) June 16, 2022<\/p>\n\n
In the press release, Voyager explained the loan:<\/p>\n
\u201cAs previously disclosed, the proceeds of the credit facility are intended to be used to safeguard customer assets in light of current market volatility and only if such use is needed. In addition to this facility, as of June 20, 2022, Voyager has approximately US$152 million cash and owned crypto assets on hand, as well as approximately US$20 million of cash that is restricted for the purchase of USDC.\u201d<\/p>\n
The loan comes with \u201ccertain conditions,\u201d among them:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cNo more than US$75 million may be drawn down over any rolling 30-day period.\u201d
\n\u201cThe Company\u2019s corporate debt must be limited to approximately 25 percent of customer assets on the platform, less US$500 million.\u201d\u00a0
\n\u201cAdditional sources of funding must be secured within 12 months.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Voyager Digital price chart on OTC | Source: TradingView.com
\nIt\u2019s All About Three Arrows Capital Right Now<\/p>\n
The press release confirms the rumors, the Singapore-based entity named \u201ccounterparty b\u201d was 3AC. \u201cVoyager concurrently announced that its operating subsidiary, Voyager Digital, LLC, may issue a notice of default to Three Arrows Capital (\u201c3AC\u201d) for failure to repay its loan.\u201d In a recent article, our sister site Bitcoinist broke down the hedge fund\u2019s situation:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe crypto fund had been directly in the crosshairs of the Luna crash with exposure of more than $200 million and speculated to be as high as $450 million. At first, the firm had appeared to bounce back from the Luna collapse but it would be soon obvious that 3AC was in a more perilous position than investors thought.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Voyager situation makes it even more obvious. The company\u2019s \u201cexposure to 3AC consists of 15,250 BTC and $350 million USDC\u201d. So, the Alameda loan covers most of it. What did they have to give in return, though? Formally, \u201cAlameda currently indirectly holds 22,681,260 common shares of Voyager (\u201cCommon Shares\u201d), representing approximately 11.56% of the outstanding Common and Variable Voting Shares\u201d. If everything goes well, Voyager has nothing to worry about. However, what if it doesn\u2019t?<\/p>\n
Voyager levered 3AC up with 650million of their customers money, leaving them with only 150million cash reserves.<\/p>\n
Who tf is in charge of risk over there, Merrill Lynch?<\/p>\n
\u2014 Tyler (@ApeDurden) June 22, 2022<\/p>\n\n
In any case, for those that like gossip, here\u2019s the story as narrated by Voyager:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Company made an initial request for a repayment of $25 million USDC by June 24, 2022, and subsequently requested repayment of the entire balance of USDC and BTC by June 27, 2022. Neither of these amounts has been repaid, and failure by 3AC to repay either requested amount by these specified dates will constitute an event of default. Voyager intends to pursue recovery from 3AC and is in discussions with the Company\u2019s advisors regarding the legal remedies available.\u201d<\/p>\n
Answers And Conclusions<\/p>\n
The crypto industry as a whole is in a precarious situation. And there\u2019s one question at the center of it, is Sam Bankman-Fried controlling the chaos or is he taking total control of the industry?<\/p>\n
Featured Image by Sebastian Herrmann on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Apparently, Voyager Digital is out of the woods. The company ran into liquidity issues when Three Arrows Capital failed to pay a huge loan to them. Welcome to another chapter of the crypto death spiral caused by the Terra\/ Luna collapse. Who came to the rescue this time? Sam Bankman-Fried\u2019s other company, Alameda Ventures. Is this man bailing out crypto or is he taking total control of the industry?<\/p>\n
In a recent press release, Voyager Digital announced that it \u201centered into a definitive agreement with Alameda Ventures Ltd. related to the previously disclosed credit facility, which is intended to help Voyager meet customer liquidity needs during this dynamic period.\u201d That\u2019s one way of putting it. The company received \u201cUS$200 million cash and USDC revolver and a 15,000 BTC revolver.\u201d<\/p>\n
This morning, we announced a definitive agreement with Alameda Ventures for a $200 million dollar cash \/ USDC revolver and a 15,000 BTC revolver.<\/p>\n
Read today\u2019s release: https:\/\/t.co\/8wPfzcaI6K<\/p>\n
\u2014 Voyager (@investvoyager) June 22, 2022<\/p>\n
As a reminder, yesterday transpired that FTX, also owned by Bankman-Fried, bailed out BlockFi with $250M. At the time, we described the situation as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cOver the last few weeks, the crypto market has been trending down. The contagion effect of the Terra\/ Luna extinction event rocked every company out there, most of all those who offered yield on cryptocurrency deposits like BlockFi and Celsius and hedge funds like Three Arrows Capital. These companies\u2019 problems and possible liquidation of assets, in turn, sent the crypto market into even more turmoil.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Voyager case fits right into that description.<\/p>\n
Sam Bankman-Fried\u2019s Loan To Voyager, The Conditions<\/p>\n
The rumors were already flying. On June 16th, analyst Dylan LeClair tweeted \u201cSpeculation here, but in its quarterly report, Voyager had loaned $320m to a singapore based entity named \u201ccounterparty b\u201d. One has to wonder whether \u201ccounterparty b\u201d was 3AC and if so, how much of a hit Voyager took?\u201d The answer came quicker than anyone thought.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Speculation here, but in its quarterly report, Voyager had loaned $320m to a singapore based entity named “counterparty b”.<\/p>\n
One has to wonder whether “counterparty b” was 3AC and if so, how much of a hit Voyager took? $VOYG shares are down 33% over the last two days\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/sCiYskwLEq<\/p>\n
\u2014 Dylan LeClair (@DylanLeClair_) June 16, 2022<\/p>\n
In the press release, Voyager explained the loan:<\/p>\n
\u201cAs previously disclosed, the proceeds of the credit facility are intended to be used to safeguard customer assets in light of current market volatility and only if such use is needed. In addition to this facility, as of June 20, 2022, Voyager has approximately US$152 million cash and owned crypto assets on hand, as well as approximately US$20 million of cash that is restricted for the purchase of USDC.\u201d<\/p>\n
The loan comes with \u201ccertain conditions,\u201d among them:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cNo more than US$75 million may be drawn down over any rolling 30-day period.\u201d
\n\u201cThe Company\u2019s corporate debt must be limited to approximately 25 percent of customer assets on the platform, less US$500 million.\u201d\u00a0
\n\u201cAdditional sources of funding must be secured within 12 months.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Voyager Digital price chart on OTC | Source: TradingView.com
\nIt\u2019s All About Three Arrows Capital Right Now<\/p>\n
The press release confirms the rumors, the Singapore-based entity named \u201ccounterparty b\u201d was 3AC. \u201cVoyager concurrently announced that its operating subsidiary, Voyager Digital, LLC, may issue a notice of default to Three Arrows Capital (\u201c3AC\u201d) for failure to repay its loan.\u201d In a recent article, our sister site Bitcoinist broke down the hedge fund\u2019s situation:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe crypto fund had been directly in the crosshairs of the Luna crash with exposure of more than $200 million and speculated to be as high as $450 million. At first, the firm had appeared to bounce back from the Luna collapse but it would be soon obvious that 3AC was in a more perilous position than investors thought.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Voyager situation makes it even more obvious. The company\u2019s \u201cexposure to 3AC consists of 15,250 BTC and $350 million USDC\u201d. So, the Alameda loan covers most of it. What did they have to give in return, though? Formally, \u201cAlameda currently indirectly holds 22,681,260 common shares of Voyager (\u201cCommon Shares\u201d), representing approximately 11.56% of the outstanding Common and Variable Voting Shares\u201d. If everything goes well, Voyager has nothing to worry about. However, what if it doesn\u2019t?<\/p>\n
Voyager levered 3AC up with 650million of their customers money, leaving them with only 150million cash reserves.<\/p>\n
Who tf is in charge of risk over there, Merrill Lynch?<\/p>\n
\u2014 Tyler (@ApeDurden) June 22, 2022<\/p>\n
In any case, for those that like gossip, here\u2019s the story as narrated by Voyager:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Company made an initial request for a repayment of $25 million USDC by June 24, 2022, and subsequently requested repayment of the entire balance of USDC and BTC by June 27, 2022. Neither of these amounts has been repaid, and failure by 3AC to repay either requested amount by these specified dates will constitute an event of default. Voyager intends to pursue recovery from 3AC and is in discussions with the Company\u2019s advisors regarding the legal remedies available.\u201d<\/p>\n
Answers And Conclusions<\/p>\n
The crypto industry as a whole is in a precarious situation. And there\u2019s one question at the center of it, is Sam Bankman-Fried controlling the chaos or is he taking total control of the industry?<\/p>\n
Featured Image by Sebastian Herrmann on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_layout":"default_layout","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blockchain"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1876","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptocornercafe.com\/cafe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}