May 6, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

$25 Million in 2 Weeks: BlockFi Booms as Bitcoin, Ether Investors Seek Interest

$25 million in 2 weeks: blockfi booms as bitcoin, ether investors seek interest

$25 Million in 2 Weeks: BlockFi Booms as Bitcoin, Ether Investors Seek Interest

The Takeaway

  • BlockFi’s interest-yielding deposit accounts, launched in beta in January and fully live this month, have attracted more than $35 million in crypto. Most of it is being lent to institutional borrowers.
  • BlockFi’s terms of service give the company significant leeway over how it uses depositors’ funds and what interest rate it can pay them. This flexibility is needed for the company to grow fast, CEO Zac Prince says.
  • Institutional investors borrow crypto at individualized terms, at interest rates from 4 to 12 percent, and BlockFi can call in the loans at any time.
  • When crypto prices move dramatically, BlockFi manages risks by making borrowers put up more collateral or selling some of it.
  • BlockFi is planning to roll out new products every six months and raise more capital.

–––––––

BlockFi wasn’t the first lending startup in the cryptocurrency market, but it’s likely the one getting the most attention these days — including some heat from community members.

While it was founded in 2017, and began making fiat loans with crypto collateral in January 2018, the company was thrust into the spotlight earlier this month when it officially launched an interest-bearing deposit account. Seemingly too good to be true, the product entices investors with returns of up to 6.2 percent annually for holding their bitcoin or either.

So far, the product seems to be gaining traction. According to CEO and founder Zac Prince, users have already deposited more than $35 million worth of crypto, around 80 percent of it in bitcoin, into their interest-bearing accounts since beta testing began in January. Of that, $25 million, was gathered after the March 5 launch.

Yet skeptics almost immediately began looking under the hood.

For example, lawyer Stephen Palley noted that, while BlockFi is advertising 6.2 percent, according to the product’s terms and conditions page, the company can modify the rate at its discretion. Others pointed out that, as the deposits won’t be insured as they would be at a bank, “your upside is limited to 6.2 percent whereas your downside is 100 percent” if BlockFi fails.

Wall Street veteran Caitlin Long noted that by depositing their crypto with BlockFi, people expose themselves to a form of counterparty risk: “I didn’t see disclosure on that,” she wrote, adding that by rehypothecating clients’ funds – that is, lending out collateral – BlockFi may be exposing itself to legal challenges in some U.S. states.

Given the controversial yet clear market interest in this product, CoinDesk sat down with Prince to talk about the company’s policies, how BlockFi’s business works, and, most importantly, how it manages risk.

Lending fiat, borrowing crypto

BlockFi is currently offering two products to retail customers: cryptocurrency-backed loans and crypto-funded interest accounts. With the loans, the customer borrows U.S. dollars for one year at 4.5 percent interest, depositing bitcoin, litecoin or ether as collateral. They can only borrow up to 50 percent of what the pledged crypto is worth at the time.

Meanwhile, with the interest account, the customer deposits bitcoin or ether with BlockFi so that the asset can accumulate interest (denominated in crypto) every month. As mentioned, BlockFi is advertising a 6.2 percent annual compound interest rate for such accounts, which is two to three times better than a U.S.Treasury bond or a U.S. bank saving account yield.

$25 million in 2 weeks: blockfi booms as bitcoin, ether investors seek interest

Image of BlockFi’s CEO Zac Prince by Anna Baydakova for CoinDesk

But again, the terms and conditions explicitly say that the interest will be calculated by BlockFi at its discretion.

When asked if there is any benchmark BlockFi uses to determine the interest rate (the way, for example, a bank might take into account an index like LIBOR when setting the rate on a loan), Prince answered simply: “No.”

The absence of any formula allows BlockFi to flexibly change the rate and make it more attractive to potential users, he said, explaining that for now, the product doesn’t make money:

The rate is a combination of the market and customer acquisition costs. This product will be for some amount of time, probably for for 3 to 18 months, a loss leader. We are OK with losing money for a while. If it was purely formulaic we probably wouldn’t have enough control to make sure it’s attractive enough to a large amount of people to hit our customer acquisition targets.”

To grow its user base quickly, BlockFi is planning to roll out new products every six months and to raise more capital. (It has already done several venture funding rounds, the largest one – led by Mike Novogratz’s Galaxy Digital – raising $52.2 million.)

Prince explained:

“We believe that we will be able to continue raising venture capital supporting the growth and at a certain point down the road [when] we’re a much bigger company, maybe we’re a public company, then we can say: ‘Ok, we turn to profit now.’ We anticipate being able to raise larger and larger amounts of venture capital for a while, at least for the next couple of years.”

…and lending crypto, too

The third thing BlockFi does, without advertising it to the retail market, is lend crypto to financial institutions. “We don’t really think of it being a product,” Prince said. “We think of this as of something we need to do to be able to deliver our product to our core customer, which is retail.”

This third element is what allows BlockFi to earn crypto that can be used to pay interest to its retail depositors. (The fiat loans are in a separate bucket, funded from the venture capital BlockFi raised.)

Most of the $35 million in deposits gathered is being lent to institutional borrowers: of every deposit, a bigger part goes to the lending business and a smaller part stays as a reserve, but the exact ratio is not disclosed.

Gemini Trust, founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, was chosen to handle custody for BlockFi’s clients, as well as the moving of crypto from the depositors to the institutional borrowers — BlockFi itself doesn’t hold the cryptographic private keys controlling the funds, Prince said.

Currently, BlockFi’s borrowers mostly belong to two groups, he said: people trading bitcoin futures and traditional financial institutions – in particular, proprietary trading firms and market makers.

The terms on which institutions borrow crypto vary on a case-by-case basis, Prince said. The interest rate can be between 4 and 12 percent, and the fiat collateral (which can be denominated in stablecoins, either the Gemini dollar or the Paxos Standard) can be between 110 and 150 percent of the loan amount. The relationships with borrowers are governed by individual ISDA agreements (the standard document governing over-the-counter derivatives transactions, made famous by the bestseller and movie “The Big Short“).

The term of the loan can vary, but BlockFi reserves the right to call in the loan with one’s week’s notice — the same amount of notice a depositor can give to withdraw crypto. This clause ensures the company will always have enough crypto to meet withdrawal requests, according to Prince.

Managing risk

So what happens when crypto prices move significantly (as they often do)?

When the price goes down, clients’ collateral will shrink, too, and the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of the loans will rise from 50 percent to a higher number. On the other hand, if prices soar, institutional crypto borrowers will find their loans much more expensive to pay back. But according to Prince, BlockFi has taken several measures to mitigate these risks.

For the fiat loans, if at some point the amount of cash a retail client borrowed becomes equal to 70 percent of the collateral instead of 50 percent, to return to a safer LTV ratio, BlockFi will contact the client and give them 72 hours to either pay back the loan, add more collateral or take no action. Choosing the third option means BlockFi will sell a part of the collateral on an exchange or through an OTC desk, use it to pay down the loan, and get the LTV “back into the safe zone,” as the terms and conditions page puts it.

The same mechanism works for institutional investors that borrow crypto: if the price of bitcoin goes up, and what they borrowed ends up costing more relative to the amount of cash collateral, BlockFi will contact them and ask them to add more cash. If the bitcoin price hits a certain preset level, which also varies from borrower to borrower, BlockFi can use the collateral to buy bitcoin and close out the loan.

The terms for institutions, again, are highly dependent on the level of trust a particular client has. As Prince put it:

“If, say, JP Morgan wanted to borrow a million dollars from us, we probably wouldn’t need to take any collateral.”

Plus, the loans are structured so that if need be, BlockFi can chase after the deeper pockets behind a borrower. “We’re making sure that we have passed through to a parent entity if we’re facing a subsidiary, in terms of a default,” Prince said.

Legal and regulatory

In case the borrower defaults, taking them to court won’t be a problem, Prince believes.

“The legal structure we use to lend someone crypto is no different than we would use, say, to lend somebody USD secured by Japanese yen,” he said.

As for regulatory compliance, BlockFi is a licensed lender in the states that require this — the cash loans are now available in 47 U.S. states.

“The biggest state we don’t support is Nevada because it requires you to have an office in the state, which isn’t something we plan on doing in the near term,” BlockFi’s director of marketing Brad Michelson told CoinDesk. He wouldn’t name the other two excluded states.

As for the interest accounts, they are available worldwide, except the states of New York, Connecticut and Washington and in any countries sanctioned by the U.S., the U.K. or the E.U.

BlockFi doesn’t hold a New York State BitLicense, which explains why it lends but won’t take deposits there.

“For the crypto loans, we don’t believe we need a BitLicense,” Prince said. “For the interest accounts, we don’t believe we need one either, but our opinion on that is not strong enough for us to offer it here.”

$25 million in 2 weeks: blockfi booms as bitcoin, ether investors seek interest

Some of BlockFi’s state lending licenses on display at its office

The fine print

The terms and conditions on BlockFi’s website say that the company “will lend, sell, pledge, rehypothecate, assign, invest, use, commingle or otherwise dispose of funds and cryptocurrency assets to counterparties, and we will use our commercial best efforts to prevent losses,” affording the lender significant leeway over its use of clients’ funds.

Further, users waive their rights to obtain a paper copy of the contract, file a class action against BlockFi or request a jury trial. The company also can change the terms at any time and it’s the user’s responsibility to review them “from time to time.”

Prince explained that what is described in the terms is just the real risk to a crypto investor, plainly stated.

“There is this conundrum that you’re put in: you have to be really, really careful in terms of what your agreement says to protect your company, because crypto is in this regulatory grey area,” he said. “The Catch-22 is you have lawyers, you disclose any risk, you’re trying to protect your company from the regulators, but that means you need to write stuff like this.”

He added:

“Scams don’t write stuff like this.”

As for rehypothecation, which Long and others consider antithetical to bitcoin’s promise, Prince argues it’s essential for the nascent crypto market to grow. One of the benefits of rehypothecation, he explained, is that it allows intermediaries to reduce trading fees and enable short selling.

“If you don’t have a market that goes both ways, you can’t find the true price of an asset. Rehypothecation is the major component enabling that,” he said.

At the end of the day, any investment is risky, and BlockFi is just being forthright about it, Prince argued, concluding:

“Read a risk disclosure of, say, an IPO, and maybe in the end you say: ‘This is the scariest thing ever, I’ll never invest in a stock again in my life!’”

Image of BlockFi’s CEO Zac Prince by Anna Baydakova for CoinDesk

Published at Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:55:53 +0000

Previous Article

The Internet Has Changed Our Understanding Of How Stock Investing Works — In Both Good And Bad Ways |

Next Article

Cryptopia resumes trading of 40 trade pairs; plans to add more soon

You might be interested in …

A Bitcoin Social Media Storm Hit BitPay This Week: Here's Why

Everyone’s Mad at BitPay. Here’s Why.

The bitcoin community is not taking kindly to BitPay this week. Influential developers are accusing the major payment processor of fraud, bitcoin users on social media are calling for boycots, bitcoin.org is removing recommendations of the company’s products, and NBitcoin developer Nicolas Dorier has launched an initiative to fork some of BitPay’s projects altogether.

Here’s why.

Bitcore

The controversial issue has to do with Bitcore.

Bitcore is a type of bitcoin node developed by BitPay. It is specifically designed to offer a development platform, on top of which it is easy to build all kinds of bitcoin applications. Anyone can use this open-source tool; some of the better-known applications that utilize it include video-streaming service Streamium, Trezor’s web interface and BitPay’s own Copay wallet.

Within the next a couple of days, most likely on August 23, the long-awaited bitcoin protocol upgrade Segregated Witness (SegWit) will activate. Seemingly in response to this upgrade, BitPay published a blog post titled What Bitcore Users Need to Know to Be Ready for SegWit Activation

But not everyone is happy with the contents of this blog post…

The “Major Risk” That Is (or Isn’t) SegWit

The first problem is not the most important problem, but it is worth mentioning, regardless. It concerns the topic of the blog post itself: Segregated Witness.

In the blog post, BitPay states:

Nodes which fail to upgrade to support SegWit will face major security risks, including the risk of double-spend transaction fraud.

This appears to be a bit of an exaggeration.

Segregated Witness is specifically designed to be backwards compatible. Regular nodes that do not upgrade remain part of the bitcoin network. And importantly, since SegWit was activated by a unanimous hash-power majority, all miners should be enforcing the new rules. As such, transactions that are invalid according the new rules should never be accepted in any bitcoin blocks at all. Even non-upgraded nodes should never see these invalid transactions confirm.

It is true that — like every other soft fork before SegWit — there are some increased risks for non-upgraded nodes. And in an additional blog post, BitPay does provide more details and nuance regarding the situation.

But the somewhat alarmist tone of the first blog post seems a bit unnecessary. Therefore, to many it appears to have had the specific goal of pushing users toward a software upgrade for very different reasons.

Which brings us to the next point…

The “Upgrade” That Is (or Isn’t) bitcoin

While BitPay’s alarmist tone seemed like an unnecessary means, it’s the end that really ticked so many people off.

As per the “New York Agreement,” a significant group of bitcoin companies, mining pools and individuals plans to adopt an incompatible set of protocol rules by November. Dubbed “SegWit2x,” and implemented in the BTC1 software developed by former bitcoin Core contributor Jeff Garzik, this project would “hard fork” an increase of bitcoin’s block weight limit, allowing for blocks of up to eight megabytes. (Whether this should technically be called a hard fork or an altcoin is debatable, but never mind that for now.)

The problem is that, while a significant group of bitcoin companies — including, indeed, BitPay — signed on to the New York Agreement, this agreement currently does not have industry-wide consensus. Most notably, bitcoin’s development community has almost unanimously rejected the proposal. There is also a long list of companies that never signed onto the initiative in the first place; in fact, some of them are actively opposed to it. And more informal metrics, like social media sentiment, opinion polls and network node count generally also show limited support for SegWit2x.

As such, it is likely that SegWit2x would split off to create a new blockchain and currency, not unlike what bitcoin Cash (Bcash) did. Unlike Bcash, however, SegWit2x currently has no intention of picking a new name, nor does it plan to implement safety precautions like replay protection. (Replay protection would prevent the “same” coin from accidentally being spent on both chains.) For all intents and purposes, the companies behind SegWit2x appear to be set to claim this coin is the “real” bitcoin, while the coin that follows the current bitcoin protocol won’t be.

This approach is controversial. Many bitcoin users that do not support the hard fork may prefer to keep using bitcoin as is, without worrying about added (replay) risks or other inconveniences caused by SegWit2x. And if two different coins claim the name “bitcoin,” it could lead to much confusion, for obvious reasons.

Regardless, in BitPay’s blog post, which speaks of an “upgrade” for Bitcore users in preparation for SegWit, the payment processor actually directs readers to download the BTC1 software; that is, the software that embeds the SegWit2x protocol, rather than the current bitcoin protocol. It therefore appeared that the company was really trying to get Bitcore users to switch to a whole new coin, which BitPay will consider “bitcoin.” And the payment processor initially did so without so much as warning Bitcore users that following these instructions would make them incompatible with the current bitcoin protocol by November.

Herein lies the concern: BitPay must have known that this advice is controversial. Failing to mention the risks or consequences made the blog post seem deceptive.

The Hash Power That Supports (or Doesn’t Support) SegWit2x

Finally, after BitPay faced initial blowback for its blog post for reasons described, it included an addendum. In it, the payment processor writes:

[O]ur instructions follow this version of bitcoin because over 95% of bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x.

While this addendum provides a little bit more clarity, it is once again a bit of a questionable statement.

Perhaps most importantly: If BTC1 indeed hard forks in November, BitPay right now has no way of knowing how much hash power will really be mining on the SegWit2x chain.

While it is true that mining pools currently representing a supermajority of hash power signed on to the New York Agreement, mining pools usually don’t have full control over the hash power that is pointed toward their pools. Much of this hash power actually belongs to individual miners (“hashers”), who could switch to a new pool with the click of a few buttons. (For example, when another mining pool, Ghash.io, reached over 50 percent of total hash power on the network a couple of years ago, hashers were also urged to move to different pools.)

Furthermore, even if a specific mining pool does control its hash power, nothing in the New York Agreement says these pools should mine on the SegWit2x chain exclusively. Since miners typically dedicate their hash power to maximize profit, it is very possible that this hash power will be attributed to different chains according to the value of the coins on these chains. (This is what usually happens between altcoins. Similarly, just over the past couple of weeks, some signatories to the New York Agreement have already begun directing some hash power to the Bcash chain.)

In its addendum, BitPay appears to be ignoring these dynamics. Once again, this has an air of deceptiveness.

In BitPay’s Defense…

All that said, it should be noted that the risks are still limited, even if users follow BitPay’s instructions.

This is because BitPay is not (currently) suggesting that users run BTC1 software to send and receive transactions. Rather, BitPay is advising users to connect their Bitcore nodes to a BTC1 node as a “border node.” This means that the BTC1 node will essentially act as a network filter to reject all transactions invalid under the new SegWit rules.

Until the hard fork in November, using BTC1 as a border node shouldn’t do any harm whatsoever. BTC1 is compatible with the bitcoin network until that point in time, and indeed enforces the new SegWit rules.

If no further action is taken, the BTC1 border node would switch to the SegWit2x blockchain by November. But even then, the current Bitcore nodes that are used to send and receive transactions will not make that switch. As such, BTC1 nodes would only let SegWit2x transactions through, which would then, in turn, be rejected by Bitcore nodes. This incompatibility between the two nodes actually means that no blocks would come through at all.

As such, no one would send or accept (confirmed) payments in a different coin than they mean to. In a worst case scenario, the whole setup essentially shuts down.

While the blog post appears deceptive in some ways, BitPay’s advice shouldn’t, in itself, cause a of loss funds.

Shortly before publication of this article, BitPay CEO Stephen Pair said in statement to bitcoin Magazine:

This was unfortunately not the way I had intended this conversation to begin. I will have more to say on this topic in the near future, and feel I owe it to the community to say something. Unfortunately, it may take a little while for that communication to happen as I have other matters demanding my attention at the moment.

The post A Bitcoin Social Media Storm Hit BitPay This Week: Here's Why appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin Core 0.17.0 Released

bitcoin Core 0.17.0 Released bitcoin Core version 0.17.0 is now available for download containing many new features as well as bug fixes and other improvements. For a complete list of changes, please see the release […]