BlockFi
Takes as collateral: bitcoin
Events for this venue: dated moves past a published rule and levels crossed.
Dollar loans only: other currencies are separate books, never added in
Debt and rates count loans made in US dollars and dollar stablecoins. Loans in euros, francs, yen, ether or bitcoin itself are separate books, shown by currency on each venue, never added in.
10 of 10 criteria researched. What the criteria are →
Markets — as served, not a venue rate
One row per market, as the venue publishes them. These are market rates: combining them into a single venue rate is a weighting across this venue's markets, and choosing one here would be a methodology decision taken in a web page.
No BTC market rows are served for this venue. This venue runs no contracts, so there is no market state to read — the absence is a property of the venue class, not a gap.
Price
What does credit cost here, and how is the price formed?
| Rate formation | posted_cardsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). posted rate card by LTV tier (plus 2% origination fee); personalised rates for loans of $50,000+. BlockFi published a rate card keyed to LTV tier. Loans of $50,000 or more could get individually quoted rates on application. Evidence: "Crypto-Backed Loan Rates" — BlockFi 'Crypto-Backed Loan Rates' page, Wayback snapshot 2022-11-11, 2022-11-11 (https://web.archive.org/web/20221111025013/https://blockfi.com/loan-rates); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
|---|---|
| Term structure | fixed_termsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). Loans originated for a 12-month term and were prepayable without penalty. (A help-centre article archived 2022-06-29 describes refinancing or extending for another year at maturity; read but not quoted.) Evidence: ". Loans originate for a 12-month term." — BlockFi 'crypto-loans' product page, Wayback snapshot 2022-06-13, 2022-06-13 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220613004806/https://blockfi.com/crypto-loans); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
| Rate certainty | fixed_at_originationsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). The rate was set by the LTV tier chosen at origination. Rate card archived 2022-11-11 (US clients): 50% LTV 9.75%, 35% LTV 7.9%, 20% LTV 4.5% (20% tier only for BTC-backed loans up to $20k), each with a 2% origination fee. The card is a table on the page, so the figures are not quotable as one sentence. No fetched source states in terms that the rate could not change during the 12-month term; 'fixed' is inferred from the tiered card, hence medium confidence. Evidence: "The amount of USD you can borrow depends on the amount of collateral you post against the loan, and which loan-to-value (LTV) ratio you secure." — BlockFi 'Crypto-Backed Loan Rates' page, Wayback snapshot 2022-11-11, 2022-11-11 (https://web.archive.org/web/20221111025013/https://blockfi.com/loan-rates); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
Quality
What stands behind a position, and what can change under the reader?
| Oracle dependency | undisclosedsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). No archived BlockFi page or court filing fetched names the price feed used to compute LTV for margin calls. The help centre says only that liquidations were executed through unnamed liquidity providers at prices that could differ from public exchanges. The Loan and Security Agreement itself (which may name a source) was not obtained. Evidence: "BlockFi utilizes a variety of liquidity providers to execute these transactions in order to capture the best available price for our clients, which may vary from prices listed on public exchanges due to market conditions and volatility." — BlockFi help centre: 'Prices dropped, what is the loan margin process?', Wayback snapshot 2022-01-20, 2022-01-20 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220120220831/https://help.blockfi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360048862712-Prices-dropped-what-is-the-loan-margin-process-). |
|---|---|
| Default & liquidation | thresholdsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). Origination at up to 50% LTV (rate card tiers: 20%, 35%, 50%). Warning email at 65% LTV; margin call at 70% LTV with 72 hours to cure; at 80% LTV or above (even inside the 72 hours), or if the call was not cured, BlockFi itself could sell part of the collateral at its sole discretion. The disclosure statement confirms the 70% maintenance ratio. Thresholds are as archived 2022-01-20. Evidence: "At a 70% LTV, your loan enters a Margin Call. At this stage, action is required to restore your loan to below 70% LTV. You now have 72 hours to cure your margin and bring down your loan LTV back to a healthy level." — BlockFi help centre: 'Prices dropped, what is the loan margin process?', Wayback snapshot 2022-01-20, 2022-01-20 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220120220831/https://help.blockfi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360048862712-Prices-dropped-what-is-the-loan-margin-process-); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
| Custody & backing | custodial_with_reusesourcecustodial_with_reuse (criteria v1.2): the desk held the collateral and its loan agreement let it rehypothecate, sell or lend it. As the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). The lender (BlockFi) took the collateral under a security interest and had contractual freedom to rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise use it 'with all attendant rights of ownership' without keeping a like amount. The debtors' stated position in the disclosure statement was that pledged collateral is property of the estates. BlockFi told borrowers it filed a UCC-1 and operated under UCC Article 9. Evidence: "BlockFi has the right, without further notice to a retail loan client, to pledge, repledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer, invest, or use any retail client loan collateral" — Declaration of Mark A. Renzi in support of Chapter 11 petitions and first-day motions, In re BlockFi Inc., 22-19361 (Bankr. D.N.J.), Doc 17, paras 43-46, 96, 2022-11-28 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078.17.0_2.pdf); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
| Recourse | undisclosedsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). Not found. None of the fetched issuer pages, the first-day declaration or the disclosure statement says whether a retail borrower was liable for a deficiency after liquidation. The Loan and Security Agreement (the document that would say) was not obtained. |
| Track record | unknown (this dataset postdates the venue. The venue is defunct and carries a terminal_date but no first_date, because it was never observed while trading. A span inferred from the terminal date would be a guess, and would understate exactly the history this dataset exists to measure.) |
Composition
Who and what makes up this market?
| Collateral accepted | BTC (desk-held; the desk could rehypothecate, sell or lend it)sourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). BTC accepted, alongside ETH, LTC and PAXG. Under the Chapter 11 plan as described in the disclosure statement, a borrower's claim for return of collateral ('Loan Collateral Claim') was set off against the loan owed as of the petition date; any excess was classified as an account-holder claim, paid pro rata and pari passu with general unsecured claims at the same debtor - not returned in kind as the borrower's property. This is plan treatment proposed by the debtors; no contested court ruling on title to BlockFi loan collateral was found. Evidence: "secured by certain types of digital asset collateral (BTC, ETH," — Declaration of Mark A. Renzi in support of Chapter 11 petitions and first-day motions, In re BlockFi Inc., 22-19361 (Bankr. D.N.J.), Doc 17, paras 43-46, 96, 2022-11-28 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078.17.0_2.pdf); 3 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. Loan book at failure: not found What failed: BlockFi's failure was a counterparty failure rather than a retail-loan-book failure: in early November 2022 FTX did not honour a borrowing request under its loan agreement with BlockFi, and Alameda then defaulted on about $680 million of loans from BlockFi. BlockFi filed on 2022-11-28. |
|---|---|
| Book depth & concentration | unknown (no per-venue counterparty count exists in this registry or in the comparison payload, so depth and concentration cannot be established. This is a gap in THIS DATASET, not in the venue, and is a different value from `undisclosed`, which would mean the venue does not publish it.) |
| Observability | price: partial — Posted rates recoverable from Internet Archive snapshots as archived_card; BlockFi additionally published periodic reports from mid-2022. NOT YET INGESTED. quantity: partial — Voluntary periodic reports and the bankruptcy docket, as dated snapshots. NOT YET INGESTED. composition: none — Loan-level composition unobtainable for a wound-up custodial desk. |
What the loans are denominated in
US dollars — as the venue's filings state itAssets: USD (fiat). "could borrow money in U.S. dollars against the amount of crypto assets deposited in BIAs"; "lending U.S. dollars to retail investors" — SEC Order In re BlockFi Lending LLC, Rel. 33-11029, https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2022/33-11029.pdf, read 2026-10-05
Each currency is a separate book; the dollar equivalents compare sizes and are never added together.
Backing chain
Each link from what this venue takes as collateral down to the bitcoin it rests on, in order, with how each link was established.
How a chain is read, and what it does not claim
backing_chain: the ordered claims standing between a creditor and the coins, each link derived from a sourced fact already held and carrying it in `derived_from` — the custody cell, the venue's borrow card, or wrapper_registry.yaml for who holds the bitcoin behind a token. A `representation` link has one branch per token the venue takes; branches are alternatives, not a sequence. A link nobody has established is shown with status `incomplete` and names what is missing — it is never dropped, because a missing link omitted makes a long chain look short. `undisclosed` means the party does not publish it; `incomplete` means this dataset has not established it. NEVER SCORED AND NEVER COUNTED: no length, link count or ranking is published, and none should be derived — chain length and link transparency are orthogonal (ETP-backed margin is the longest chain here and every link of it is regulated). `recourse` is what the creditor holds beyond the chain. ⚠ Tokens are identified BY SYMBOL: the wrapper registry is not keyed by chain or address, so every `representation` link carries a `deployment` step that is incomplete — whether a token is native to the chain of the venue or a bridge receipt (one more link) is not established — and a symbol the registry knows to name a different token on a venue is shown unresolved, not given that wrapper's holders.
- desk established — the desk · custodial_with_reuse
source
attribute · custody_model = custodial_with_reusecustodial_with_reuse (criteria v1.2): the desk held the collateral and its loan agreement let it rehypothecate, sell or lend it. As the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). The lender (BlockFi) took the collateral under a security interest and had contractual freedom to rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise use it 'with all attendant rights of ownership' without keeping a like amount. The debtors' stated position in the disclosure statement was that pledged collateral is property of the estates. BlockFi told borrowers it filed a UCC-1 and operated under UCC Article 9. Evidence: "BlockFi has the right, without further notice to a retail loan client, to pledge, repledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer, invest, or use any retail client loan collateral" — Declaration of Mark A. Renzi in support of Chapter 11 petitions and first-day motions, In re BlockFi Inc., 22-19361 (Bankr. D.N.J.), Doc 17, paras 43-46, 96, 2022-11-28 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078.17.0_2.pdf); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. - sub_custodian incompletethe card does not name who holds the coins for the desk
source
card · blockfi · custodial · archived_card 2021-01-26https://blockfi.com/crypto-loans/ - reuse established — the deskthe desk may lend, pledge, sell or take title to the collateral — from its terms or its own statements, not from its card
source
attribute · custody_model = custodial_with_reusecustodial_with_reuse (criteria v1.2): the desk held the collateral and its loan agreement let it rehypothecate, sell or lend it. As the desk operated before it failed (2022-01 to 2022-11). The lender (BlockFi) took the collateral under a security interest and had contractual freedom to rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise use it 'with all attendant rights of ownership' without keeping a like amount. The debtors' stated position in the disclosure statement was that pledged collateral is property of the estates. BlockFi told borrowers it filed a UCC-1 and operated under UCC Article 9. Evidence: "BlockFi has the right, without further notice to a retail loan client, to pledge, repledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer, invest, or use any retail client loan collateral" — Declaration of Mark A. Renzi in support of Chapter 11 petitions and first-day motions, In re BlockFi Inc., 22-19361 (Bankr. D.N.J.), Doc 17, paras 43-46, 96, 2022-11-28 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078/gov.uscourts.njb.1094078.17.0_2.pdf); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json.
source
The generic axis set
Identical for every venue, identically computed. An axis that cannot be computed here renders its reason — never silently omitted, because an omitted axis says it was not considered. A figure that covers only part of what the axis asks is marked, with what it leaves out beneath it. Collateral, debt and the borrow and lend rates are the tiles at the top of this page.
| Utilisation (venue roll-up) | not applicable — there is no pool of deposits here to be drawn |
|---|---|
| Intermediation margin | not applicable — needs both a borrow and a lend rate; the borrow rate is not served here |
| Trailing realised average (7/30/90d) | unknown (not published by the venue) — a posted or filed rate has no daily series here |
| Rate volatility (30/90d) | unknown (not published by the venue) — a posted or filed rate has no daily series here |
| Spread to the pair aggregate | not applicable — this venue has no borrow rate to compare |
| Spread to matched Treasuries | not applicable — this venue has no borrow rate to compare |
| Origination flow | unknown (not published by the venue) — the venue publishes no loan-by-loan flow |
| Repayment flow | unknown (not published by the venue) — the venue publishes no loan-by-loan flow |
| Aggregate and distributional LTV | not applicable — the venue is defunct: it no longer lends, and this tile describes a live book |
| Residence distribution | unknown (not published by the venue) — the venue publishes no loan durations |
| Liquidation incidence | unknown (not published by the venue) — the venue publishes no liquidations |
| Top-10 concentration share | unknown (not published by the venue) — the venue publishes no borrower distribution |
There is no score on this page and none will be added. The criteria are published and versioned before any venue is measured against them, and this venue's row is produced by the same pipeline as every other.
Access routes
Unknown (not surveyed yet). No one has looked for an MCP server for this venue. That is not the same as having looked and found none, and this row will not say the second while meaning the first. The listing criteria are published.
Ask for this by machine
| REST | GET https://api.bitcoincreditstack.com/v1/market/venues/cefi_blockfi |
|---|---|
| MCP | get_venue({ venue_id: "cefi_blockfi" }) get_venue({ venue_id: "cefi_blockfi", include: ["axes", "headline"] }) |
The same figures, the same names and dates. Connect your AI →
How this venue compares depends on what you'd borrow, for how long, against what. That's a question for your AI, with this data behind it.
https://mcp.bitcoincreditstack.com/mcp