FTX Creditors Repaid 120% Amid SBF Solvency Claims
- FTX creditors receive 120% of claims; SBF claims solvency.
- 98% of creditors have received full or more repayments.
- Debate over asset management and crypto upside remains.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s team claimed on October 31, 2025, that FTX was never bankrupt, asserting all creditors have received at least 120% repayment and maintaining significant assets post-distribution.
The announcement challenges previous assumptions about FTX’s financial distress and influences ongoing discussions about asset management in crypto bankruptcies.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s team has stated that FTX was never bankrupt, attributing the collapse to a liquidity crunch. Nearly 98% of creditors received a 120% repayment, a recovery exceeding initial claims. “There have always been enough assets to repay all customers—in full, in kind—both in November 2022, and today,” said Sam Bankman-Fried, Founder, FTX.
SBF claims significant remaining assets demonstrate solvency. FTX’s collapse was allegedly exacerbated by external factors rather than asset deficits. The statement fuels ongoing debates in the crypto community about the management of FTX’s estate.
The large repayments affected investor sentiment positively, though the methods used have drawn criticism. The decision to repay at filing-date values deprived creditors of potential gains from the asset’s appreciation.
Market participants face a continuing debate on whether crypto bankruptcies should prioritize fiat repayment. The cash-focused recovery approach by FTX’s estate limits exposure to current market value appreciation. ZachXBT, On-chain Investigator, commented, “Repaying creditors at 2022 prices means they missed massive gains on SOL and BTC. This isn’t proof FTX was solvent, but evidence of lucky asset recovery after the bankruptcy.”
Insights show differing views on whether the approach aligns with industry recovery strategies. The FTX case provides a precedent for creditor recovery but highlights unresolved issues about retaining asset upside potential.
Critics argue that creditors missed substantial gains, as repayments did not account for post-collapse market rallies. These perspectives may influence future regulatory standards in crypto insolvency cases.
