WazirX News: History Repeating? Creditors Fear Failed Vauld-Style Outcome

WazirX’s recent restructuring efforts have sparked criticism from creditors, drawing comparisons to Vauld’s controversial restructuring two years ago. Both companies’ decisions to enlist Kroll, a global restructuring firm, have raised concerns about mismanagement, lack of transparency, and potential long-term harm to creditors.

Could WazirX be following in the footsteps of Vauld, repeating the same mistakes that left creditors disillusioned? With millions of dollars at stake, the parallels between these two cases are hard to ignore.

What does this mean for the future of WazirX and its creditors? Read on.

Lessons from Vauld’s Restructuring

Vauld’s restructuring, led by CEO Darshan Bathija with Kroll’s support, left many creditors dissatisfied. The plan froze token values during a market slump, enabling higher recovery rates when the market rebounded.

While Vauld reported returning $100 million to creditors, they inflated this figure to $200 million during a market surge to mask actual losses. This approach led to widespread frustration and mistrust among creditors.

Persistent Issues for Creditors

Vauld’s creditors faced additional hurdles. Claims were restricted to frozen USD values, discouraging recovery for declines in real token value. Further complicating matters were unresolved issues like mismanaged funds, lack of proper audits, and failure to recover $6-$8 million lost in hacks before the company’s collapse.

• Also Read :

Is WazirX Repeating the Same Mistakes?

Creditors’ memories of Vauld’s failures are fresh as WazirX’s CEO, Nischal Shetty, proposes a similar restructuring plan—again involving Kroll. Critics question whether Kroll will bring clarity to the scale of the issues or if WazirX will follow the pattern of downplaying problems while overstating minor successes.

The parallels between Vauld and WazirX have led creditors to demand greater transparency and accountability. They are calling for detailed disclosures, independent audits, and a firm commitment to recovering lost funds. Without these actions, WazirX risks repeating Vauld’s cycle of disappointment, leaving creditors frustrated and distrustful.

WazirX now faces a critical test. Will it address creditors’ concerns and provide real solutions or will things go downhill? Let’s wait to see.