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.

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has issued non-compliance notices to 15 crypto platforms, or what it calls Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs), under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The notified entities could face access blocks in the country, with the FIU directing them to take down their applications and URLs.

India’s FIU Cracks Down On Crypto Entities

According to the Financial Intelligence Unit, the platforms failed to comply with several provisions of the PMLA and were operating illegally in the country. The platforms included in the list are Weex, Blofin, Bitunix, DigiFinex, Toobit, Razorex, XT.com, Latoken, WOO X, Pionex, ChangeNow, SimpleSwap, FixedFloat, WhiteBIT, and Guardarian.

India expanded its anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism framework in 2023, bringing VDA service providers in India under the ambit of FIU registration and PMLA obligations.

The PMLA mandates that companies registered as reporting entities with the Financial Intelligence Unit must report transactions and keep detailed records. These requirements are not contingent on whether the platform has a physical presence in the country. The agency stated in its press release,

“These obligations are activity-based, and are not contingent on the physical presence of the entity in India. The regulation casts reporting, record-keeping, and other obligations on the VDA SPs under the PMLA Act, which also includes registration with the FIU-IND.”

Prior Notices

Several cryptocurrency platforms have previously restricted operations in India for failing to comply with regulatory requirements. Bybit operations in India were temporarily restricted in January 2025. Access to Bybit services was fully restored once the platform completed its FIU registration. Coinbase, which suspended operations after failing to comply with regulatory requirements, returned to the Indian market after registering with the FIU, and Binance returned in 2024 after paying a $2.25 million penalty.

Investor Impact

The FIU and Ministry of Finance also cautioned against NFTs and other crypto products, stating they remain unregulated and carry substantial risk.

“There may be no regulatory recourse for any loss from such transactions.”

India’s Financial Intelligence Unit is responsible for monitoring suspicious financial transactions and reporting them to relevant agencies. Ankit Ghosh, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, explained how crypto entities fell under the FIU, stating,

“FIU-IND has always looked at the activity rather than the place of incorporation, so an offshore exchange serving Indian users comes within the reporting framework wherever it is based. Alongside the Section-13 notice, FIU-IND directed that the apps and URLs be removed under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, and that directly affects user access.”

Cryptocurrency platform WazirX called the FIU’s compliance requirements critical for protecting users, stating,

“FIU-IND’s compliance standards are critical to protecting users and preventing the misuse of VDA platforms and illegal fund transfers. Measures like KYC, AML, geotagging, and liveness verification have made India’s VDA system safer over the years, and the same rules must apply to every platform serving Indian users, whether it operates from India or overseas.”

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

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.