The gap has a structural explanation, since a customer putting €100 into Bitcoin paid Knaken €1 in fees and Knaken bought a €99 position on an exchange, Hamm said. That position belonged to Knaken. The customer's account showed an amount of crypto, while what they held was a right to the euro equivalent, and many believed they owned the coins outright. Knaken also appears not to have held cryptocurrency matching those balances, Hamm said, with investments and running costs having "long ended up in one pot."
"Whose crypto was it?"A lawyer for one affected customer has questioned whether prosecutors should have sold the holdings. "Whose crypto was it?" he asked Rijnmond, comparing it to the garage where your car is parked going bankrupt, "and your car is sold and you see nothing of it."
Prosecutors say they had good reasons and have declined to give them, though Rijnmond reported they presumably relied on a provision permitting the sale of seized goods liable to lose value. Hamm said he understood the decision, given that "the value of cryptocurrency is completely unpredictable."
Trouble began in 2020, when 23 BTC were stolen in a hack. Owner Ronald J. said the theft caused losses running to millions; at prices then, the coins were worth about $162,000 (€140,000). He kept recruiting customers and signed sponsorship deals with Feyenoord, Sparta, Heracles, Heerenveen and, briefly, Ajax. A customer using the pseudonym Henk told Rijnmond the clubs' involvement had reassured him, calling it "really scandalous."
The bankruptcy hearing heard that Ronald J. had moved $2.7 million (€2.3 million) from Knaken to a company he controlled, a transaction the court described as a form of conflict of interest. He says it was set up for marketing work to keep functions separate, and gave Rijnmond years of records the broadcaster reported showed no sign he had enriched himself.
He does not recognize the trustee's investment figure, says Knaken operated as a broker with every order logged at a liquidity provider, and calls the suggestion money went uninvested "outright incorrect and damaging," while accepting an uncovered portion existed.
Knaken did not report its problems to De Nederlandsche Bank, though the central bank confirmed its remit then covered money laundering and terrorist financing, with solvency outside its scope.
