BitMart has appointed Alvarez & Marsal as a financial adviser as part of its restructuring process, according to an announcement shared on Wednesday—despite previously signaling that a restructuring and business resumption roadmap was nearing completion by a self-imposed deadline of Sept. 9. The exchange did not publish the roadmap along with the appointment.

Alvarez & Marsal will work alongside BitMart’s legal advisers to assess the exchange’s assets, financial condition, stakeholder issues, and potential options for moving forward. The review will also consider proposals submitted by third parties, BitMart said on X.

Key takeaways

• BitMart named Alvarez & Marsal as financial adviser, but did not release the promised restructuring and resumption roadmap alongside the appointment.
• The appointed team will evaluate assets, financial position, stakeholder concerns, and alternative paths forward, including third-party proposals.
• BitMart plans to launch a dedicated web portal within five working days to collect user feedback on its action plan and direction.
• Echo Base’s CEO said the appointment is more consistent with restructuring proceedings than with a sale-focused advisory track.

Advisor appointment comes without the roadmap

BitMart said it reached Wednesday’s milestone as part of its own process, citing Sept. 9 as the deadline it had set for an update. However, the exchange’s announcement did not include the restructuring and business resumption roadmap it had stated it was developing.

Instead, the company framed the next steps around an assessment effort. Alvarez & Marsal will coordinate with legal advisers to evaluate what resources are available and what constraints exist—elements that can shape whether a recovery plan focuses on restructuring, asset disposition, or other resolution mechanisms.

BitMart also indicated that it is remaining open to outside inputs. It said the review will consider proposals from unidentified third parties, underscoring that the process may not be limited to internal plans.

What Alvarez & Marsal will evaluate

In its announcement on X, BitMart outlined the scope of Alvarez & Marsal’s involvement. The advisory review is expected to cover:

• evaluation of BitMart’s assets
• assessment of the exchange’s financial position
• analysis of stakeholder issues
• identification of possible paths forward
• consideration of third-party proposals

For users and claimholders, the practical significance is that asset and financial assessments often determine what can realistically be recovered, how assets might be distributed, and which timelines can be credibly set. While the exchange has not published a recovery roadmap in connection with the adviser appointment, the work described suggests it is still in the phase where it is trying to validate the underlying facts needed to build one.

User feedback portal and rolling updates planned

BitMart said it will roll out a dedicated web portal within five working days to collect user feedback on its action plan and future direction. It added that updates on the feedback process and action plan would be provided on a rolling basis over the following three weeks.

This approach matters because restructuring and customer repayment processes can be highly sensitive to user needs and stakeholder expectations. By collecting feedback publicly, BitMart appears to be attempting to formalize input as it moves through its next planning phase—though the exchange did not specify how that feedback will translate into binding decisions.

Readers watching for clarity will likely focus on whether the rolling updates eventually include more concrete information about user timelines, withdrawal handling, and repayment mechanics—areas that have been under scrutiny since the company moved into wind-down mode.

Echo Base views the appointment as a restructuring signal

Echo Base, which has organized an ad hoc committee of BitMart claimholders, described the appointment as “the most encouraging step BitMart has taken since July.” In comments to Cointelegraph, Echo Base CEO Roshan Dharia said Alvarez & Marsal’s role appears consistent with restructuring practitioners rather than sale-oriented advisers.

Dharia said the involvement “signals a bankruptcy filing” in “most situations of this type.” In his view, the process has not yet produced the level of detail claimholders likely want; he characterized what was received as “an advisor appointment and two new deadlines,” without what he described as a “reserve position,” “asset inventory,” “recovery estimate,” or “withdrawal timetable.”

His framing highlights a core tension that has defined the BitMart situation: the company has communicated milestones, but claimholders and affected users have continued to push for clearer, verifiable information about asset availability and timelines for withdrawals or repayment.

Cointelegraph previously reported that BitMart faced scrutiny after it announced a wind-down on July 26, following reports of delayed withdrawals. Earlier coverage noted that the exchange’s handling of customer assets and its overall financial position were being closely questioned by users and stakeholders.

Neither BitMart nor Alvarez & Marsal responded to Cointelegraph’s requests for comment on this story.

What comes next for claimholders and users

Over the next few weeks, BitMart’s rolling updates and the feedback portal it plans to launch could be the first chance for users to see whether the adviser-led assessment translates into more specific deliverables—such as an asset inventory, clearer recovery estimates, and a more detailed withdrawal or repayment timetable. Until those materials appear, the scope of Alvarez & Marsal’s work may remain more procedural than actionable for affected customers.

A company behind the Unicoin brand has filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Uniswap Labs, seeking a court ruling that its UNICOIN trademark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s asserted marks. TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, is also asking the court to cancel a US trademark registration for UNI.

The dispute centers on trademark claims and alleged brand misuse that Uniswap’s representatives raised through a series of demand letters sent over several months. Unicoin’s complaint, filed Tuesday, requests declarations on non-infringement and non-dilution, along with determinations related to whether Unicoin’s domain names violate US anti-cybersquatting laws.

Key takeaways

• TransparentBusiness Inc. (Unicoin) sued in New York federal court seeking declarations that UNICOIN does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks.
• The complaint asks the court to cancel a US trademark registration for “UNI,” which Uniswap alleges it owns or has rights to.
• Uniswap’s counsel reportedly sent three demand letters—June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14—accusing Unicoin of infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
• Unicoin is also challenging claims tied to its “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
• The legal filing comes shortly before a listed Sept. 28 public launch date for Unicoin’s UNCN token.

Unicoin’s lawsuit targets Uniswap’s asserted trademark rights

According to Unicoin’s complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, TransparentBusiness Inc. is seeking court declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks, including UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN.

The company further requests cancellation of a US trademark registration for UNI. That request is significant because it directly challenges the scope of whichever trademark rights Uniswap is asserting. If the cancellation is granted, it could narrow or remove a foundation for future enforcement arguments tied to the “UNI” branding.

The filing also asks for a legal declaration that the company’s “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). That portion of the case targets whether the domains were acquired or used in a manner that meets the federal standard for cybersquatting.

Demand letters frame Uniswap’s allegations

Unicoin’s complaint states that Uniswap’s counsel issued three demand letters on June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14. In those letters, Uniswap reportedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.

The demand letters, as described in the lawsuit, required several actions from Unicoin, including:

• Stopping use of “UNICOIN” and other “UNI”-formative marks.
• Transferring the “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains.
• Providing an accounting of revenue and profits.
• Reimbursing Uniswap’s legal fees.

These demands indicate Uniswap’s approach extended beyond stopping trademark use to seeking financial disclosures and fee reimbursement. That broad enforcement posture is part of why the litigation matters: court outcomes could shape how aggressively Uniswap and similar brands police overlaps in naming and web presence.

Cointelegraph reached out to Uniswap for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Why trademark cases matter in crypto branding

While the dispute is framed in legal trademark terms, it has practical implications for crypto projects because naming and domain strategy are tightly connected to user discovery, marketing, and community recognition. In markets where tokens and apps proliferate quickly, brand identifiers and web domains often become the first point of contact for users who are looking for official services, documentation, and liquidity.

In this case, Unicoin is contesting both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In plain terms, that puts two different legal theories in play: whether Unicoin’s use of its mark is likely to cause confusion with Uniswap’s asserted marks, and whether it nonetheless harms or weakens those marks even absent direct confusion. Unicoin’s inclusion of dilution and cybersquatting claims suggests it is treating Uniswap’s enforcement threats as multi-pronged.

Investors and builders will likely watch how the court approaches similarity between the “UNI” family of terms and whether the case turns on marketplace confusion, the strength of Uniswap’s claims to the cited marks, or the specific use of the Unicoin domains.

Timing: filing before Unicoin’s listed token launch

The lawsuit was filed weeks before a Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.

This timing may matter for participants evaluating execution risk and operational continuity. Token launches in crypto frequently depend on marketing, websites, and community onboarding—areas that can become collateral in trademark and domain disputes. Although the filing itself does not indicate the launch will be delayed, the presence of active federal litigation is the kind of uncertainty that can affect planning, partner relationships, and user-facing communications.

Separately, Unicoin’s competitive context can also provide background for why enforcement attention might intensify around well-known brands. At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion. A leading position in the DeFi trading stack can make brand-related enforcement more consequential, since other services may be measured against widely recognized naming and user expectations.

What to watch next in the case

The next developments to track are how Unicoin and Uniswap argue the legal standards for infringement, dilution, and ACPA-related domain issues, and whether the court addresses the requested cancellation of the UNI trademark registration. With a token launch date already on the calendar and multiple demand letters documented in the complaint, the litigation’s pace and interim rulings could determine how both sides manage branding and online presence going forward.

Bitcoin (BTC) sell-side risk remains near historic lows as August profit-taking cools, new data shows.

Key points:

• Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio fell to seven from 16 in September, placing it among its lowest-ever readings.
• Selling pressure eased while Bitcoin held most of its 25% August gains.
• Bitcoin ETF investors have spent 229 sessions below their aggregate breakeven level near $86,000.

Bitcoin hodlers are “selling less” in September, Glassnode says

In the latest edition of Glassnode’s The Week Onchain newsletter, the crypto analytics platform said Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio (SSRR) had reset lower.

Sell-side risk sums total onchain realized profits and losses and divides that figure by Bitcoin’s realized market cap. The result is a snapshot of the US dollar value realized over a given period relative to realized cap.

Glassnode describes lower values as signals of “macro market bottoms, accumulation phases and relatively low sell-side risk environments.”

SSRR reached 16 as Bitcoin’s price hit multimonth highs above $80,000 in late August. As of this week, however, the metric has more than halved to 7, one of the lowest readings on record.

Glassnode said the August Bitcoin price rebound had “drawn little supply,” as measured by onchain activity.

“At the July 2025 and October 2025 highs the same measure spiked to 35 and 23 basis points. Only a small share of days in the past year have run lower than today,” it noted.

Data also shows that long-term holders — defined as wallet entities that hold a UTXO without spending it for at least six months — are realizing profits onchain at a lower rate this month.

“Long-term holders’ share of realized profit has fallen to 47% from 88% at the August peak, and September’s realized profit spike on September 3, 2026 was under half the size of August’s,” Glassnode continued. 

“The sellers this month are recent buyers, and even they are selling less.”

Bitcoin ETF buyers eye breakeven point

The SSRR reading may ease concerns that even a modest Bitcoin price correction could trigger panic selling.

Related: New Bitcoin whales spark sell-side risk as unrealized gains hit $9B

Bitcoin investor cohorts have returned to aggregate profit after Bitcoin reclaimed $80,000, potentially increasing the temptation to sell if the price retraces further. As Cointelegraph reported, the spent output profit ratio (SOPR) has remained in net profit for its longest stretch of 2026.

SOPR reflects the net profitability of spent coins, with 1 representing breakeven. Sustained readings above 1 can support a bullish long-term trend change.

Glassnode added that US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) investors would return to aggregate profit at $86,000. Bitcoin has closed below that level for the past 229 sessions, with ETF investors’ paper losses currently around $3.9 billion.

Former Bank of England and Bundesbank officials have joined Fnality’s UK and European boards as the bank-backed blockchain payments company prepares to expand its central bank money settlement network beyond sterling.

Fnality said Thursday that former Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe will chair the board of its UK entity, while former Deutsche Bundesbank payments executive Jochen Metzger has been appointed to the supervisory board of Fnality Europe and is expected to become its chair.

Ron Berndsen, who previously served as head of oversight and head of market infrastructures policy at De Nederlandsche Bank, is joining the supervisory board of the Germany-based European business.

The appointments bring three former central bank officials into Fnality’s governance structure as banks and other financial institutions develop infrastructure for settling tokenized securities and moving digital forms of money across blockchain networks.

Fnality brings former central bankers into its payments network

Cunliffe previously served as the Bank of England’s deputy governor for financial stability, where his responsibilities included oversight of financial market infrastructure and payment systems.

Metzger served as director general for payments and settlement systems at Deutsche Bundesbank, while Berndsen previously worked on oversight and market infrastructure policy at the Dutch central bank.

Their appointments come as Fnality works to extend its wholesale payment infrastructure into additional currencies and jurisdictions.

The London-based company operates a blockchain-based wholesale payment system that allows participating financial institutions to settle obligations using funds backed by central bank money. Its sterling payment system launched in 2023 and is regulated by the Bank of England.

Fnality is now seeking regulatory approvals for dollar- and euro-denominated versions of the network.

“It is really important that we find a way to get central banks and central bank money at the heart of the new technologies that were pioneered in the crypto world,” Cunliffe said in an interview.

“Some of those technologies are coming to the mainstream world of finance because they offer better functionality and speed.”

Fnality was founded in 2019 and is backed by banks and financial market infrastructure companies including Goldman Sachs, UBS, Banco Santander, Bank of America and Citigroup.

The company raised $136 million in Series C funding in September 2025, with crypto.news previously reporting that WisdomTree, Bank of America, Citi, KBC Group, Temasek and Tradeweb led or participated in the round alongside existing investors including Goldman Sachs, Santander, UBS and Euroclear.

That financing took Fnality’s total funding since 2019 to more than $280 million. The company said at the time that the capital would support expansion of the Sterling Fnality Payment System into additional currencies, alongside liquidity management tools and connections with stablecoins and tokenized deposits.

Fnality had earlier raised $95 million in Series B funding in 2023 in a round led by Goldman Sachs and BNP Paribas. Euroclear, DTCC, WisdomTree and Nomura were among the participants, while Santander, BNY Mellon, Barclays, ING, Lloyds Banking Group, State Street and UBS were among its existing backers.

Tokenized assets are creating demand for digital settlement

Banks are increasing work on tokenization, where conventional assets such as stocks and bonds are represented and transferred through blockchain-based infrastructure.

Moving securities onto digital networks creates a corresponding requirement for the cash side of transactions to operate on compatible systems. Fnality’s model uses central bank-backed money for wholesale settlement, allowing participating institutions to complete transactions involving digital assets without relying solely on stablecoins or commercial bank deposits.

Its live sterling system has been used for cases including real-time settlement of tokenized securities through delivery versus payment, foreign exchange transactions using payment versus payment and repo transactions.

Similar projects are developing across the banking sector.

Swift moved its blockchain ledger into deployment in July with 17 global banks preparing to test tokenized deposit payments for round-the-clock cross-border settlement. Participants included HSBC, Citi, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, DBS and Standard Chartered.

The system coordinates tokenized deposits between banks while retaining existing compliance, risk and control processes. Tokenized deposits are digital representations of commercial bank deposits, meaning the underlying funds remain on the issuing bank’s balance sheet.

In August, HSBC and Standard Chartered completed the first live interbank transaction through Swift’s blockchain ledger. The banks connected their separate tokenized deposit systems through the shared network, which matched and netted payment obligations before final settlement occurred through existing banking infrastructure.

Seventeen banks across six continents are participating in the wider Swift pilot.

Banks are testing several forms of digital money

Fnality is developing its central bank money model alongside other forms of blockchain-based cash being tested by banks, including tokenized deposits and stablecoins.

Stablecoins are generally issued by companies and backed by reserve assets, while tokenized deposits represent deposits held at commercial banks in digital form. Fnality instead provides wholesale settlement using money linked to central bank balances.

“Multiple models of digital money will co-exist,” Fnality Group CEO Michelle Neal said in an interview. “Our differentiation is that this is regulated wholesale settlement.”

Banks are developing infrastructure around more than one of those models.

Wells Fargo said in August that it planned to launch tokenized deposits for selected corporate and commercial clients, initially supporting U.S. dollar-to-British pound transactions. The bank plans to use blockchain infrastructure for 24-hour transfers, settlement and programmable payments before adding more clients, currencies and countries during 2027.

JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are separately working through The Clearing House on a shared network that would allow corporate customers to move tokenized deposits around the clock, with a launch targeted for the first half of 2027.

The development of digital cash is taking place alongside efforts to put securities settlement on distributed ledgers.

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group said in August that four MUFG companies would work with Digital Asset and Progmat on a blockchain settlement test for Japanese government bond repo transactions using Canton Network.

The project is designed to synchronize existing JGB book-entry records with blockchain infrastructure, while tokenized deposits or stablecoins are being considered for the cash side of settlement. Japan’s Financial Services Agency selected the project under its Payment Innovation Project pilot program in February.

Fnality’s sterling network uses a different settlement structure by placing central bank-backed money directly within its wholesale payments framework. With its UK system already operating, the company is working through the regulatory process required to extend that structure to dollar and euro payments.