WazirX In Hot Water? Shocking User Allegations Revealed

Key Takeaways

• WazirX has submitted a 25-page official reply on September 1st to address user objections ahead of the court hearing.

• The core issue remains whether users are owners of platform assets or unsecured creditors.

• WazirX’s stance: Users are unsecured creditors and claims are calculated based on account balances, not asset type.

• The company has rejected the call to classify users differently based on whether their tokens were stolen or not.

• Objections about inadequate disclosure and webinar handling were also refuted with evidence.

The Court Hearing & Scheme Approval

The court date for deciding whether to approve WazirX’s amended scheme of arrangement has been set, following a successful vote in favor of the scheme.

Despite majority support, several users have expressed continued dissatisfaction and formally submitted objections.

An Executive Summary Of The Restructuring Plan

Source: YouTube 

Still, these objections triggered a response from WazirX, which has now been documented and submitted to the court as of September 1st, in compliance with court directives.

The Email & Attached Document: A Quick Overview

WazirX communicated its official response via email to concerned parties.

The email was brief, simply confirming that the response file was attached and submitted as per the court’s instructions. The real insight lies within the 25-page attachment, which includes:

• A summary of the objections

• WazirX’s responses

• Detailed legal references

Major Objections Raised By Users

User Ownership Of Platform Assets

Objection: Some users claim that the crypto assets on the platform are their legal property and are held in trust by WazirX.

WazirX’s Response: WazirX strongly refutes this, stating that users do not own the platform assets directly. Instead, users are classified as unsecured creditors with account balances that represent unsecured liabilities.

Per the document:

“Platform users do not own or have property interest in the platform assets, users hold account balances which reflect the unsecured liabilities.”

Source: WazirX

Improper Classification Of Scheme Creditors

Objection: Users argue that those whose tokens were stolen should be classified separately from those whose tokens remain untouched.

WazirX’s Response: The platform rejects this suggestion, stating that all users are treated equally under the amended scheme, based on their account balance at the time of the cyber attack.

Per the document:

“There is no justification for classifying users separately, the account balances do not depend on which of the platform’s assets were stolen.”

WazirX also points out that these concerns were raised late in the process and could have been submitted earlier during public hearings.

Inadequate Disclosure By WazirX

Objection: It is alleged that WazirX has failed to provide full adjudicated disclosure and has misled creditors.

WazirX’s Response: The company maintains that it has consistently provided clear and timely information across all channels, including public webinars, FAQs, and legal submissions.

Improper Conduct Of The Third Webinar

Objection: Some users claimed the third online webinar, which was part of WazirX’s disclosure efforts, was not conducted properly.

WazirX’s Response: The company has dismissed this claim, stating that all webinars were announced publicly, executed transparently, and open to all stakeholders. No substantial evidence was presented to prove procedural misconduct.

FAQ

Is WazirX saying users don’t own their crypto?

Yes. WazirX has stated that users do not own platform assets directly. Instead, users hold account balances, which are considered unsecured liabilities under the amended scheme.

Why are users being treated equally, even if their tokens were not stolen?

According to WazirX, the amended scheme treats all users based on their final account balances, regardless of whether their specific tokens were compromised during the cyber-attack. They argue this ensures fairness and avoids unnecessary fragmentation of creditor classes.

What was the issue with the third webinar?

Some users claimed the third webinar wasn’t conducted properly. However, WazirX has denied these claims, stating that all webinars followed the required transparency and were accessible to all relevant parties.

Has the court made a final decision?

Not yet. The final hearing is scheduled, and the court will now review the objections and WazirX’s official response before deciding on whether to approve the scheme.