FTX Estate Sues Genesis Digital Assets
The complaint, lodged Sept. 22, 2025, targets Genesis Digital Assets (GDA) entities and co-founders Rashit Makhat and Marco Krohn, asserting that from August 2021 to April 2022, Sam Bankman-Fried caused Alameda to buy GDA shares at inflated prices while FTX.com customer funds were tapped.
The FTX Recovery Trust says Kazakhstan power curbs, new miner taxes, and missed projections made GDA’s valuations “insane and off-market,” yet Alameda kept paying. Five transfers anchor the case: $100,000,000.32 on Oct. 5, 2021, to GDA; $470,005,660.77 and $80,928,127.02 on Feb. 1, 2022, to Makhat and Krohn; and $250,000,000 each on Feb. 28 and April 13, 2022, to GDA.
Over half the money allegedly went straight to the founders in a rushed secondary deal, with little due diligence and shifting cap tables, FTX lawyers claim. The trust alleges Alameda received less than reasonably equivalent value as GDA missed revenue and EBITDA projections, delayed audits, and fell short of U.S. build-out goals.
By mid-2022, fresh funding needs emerged, and an initial public offering (IPO) touted to investors never materialized. The filing insists U.S. subsidiaries held most assets, but at fractions of the prices Alameda paid.
Legally, the suit seeks avoidance and recovery under specific Bankruptcy Codes. It argues the transfers bore “badges of fraud,” including concealment of sources, speed over diligence, insider benefits to Bankman-Fried as 90% Alameda owner, and insolvency at or after the transfers.
The narrative cites trial admissions by FTX insiders and alleges North Dimension accounts and FTX code permissions funneled customer deposits into Alameda’s “unlimited line of credit.” Using liquid exchange funds to buy illiquid mining equity, the trust says, left less cash to meet withdrawals and creditor claims when the exchange unraveled.
Defendants have not yet answered in court. GDA, headquartered in Houston with Kazakhstan operations, reportedly said it operated over 20 bitcoin mining centers; the FTX estate contends those assets are U.S.-based and controlled through Delaware subsidiaries.
