Genesis Global Capital
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 | administeredsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). negotiated bilaterally per loan and recorded in a Loan Term Sheet under a Master Loan Agreement; no posted card. Loans were governed by individually negotiated MLAs with bespoke terms per loan. Evidence: "individually negotiated Master Loan Agreements ("MLAs"), which set out the terms of the" — Memorandum of Decision on plan confirmation (Lane, J.), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 1691 (copy hosted by the NY Attorney General), 2024-05-17 (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/us-bankruptcycourt-s-ny-v-genesis-global.pdf); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
|---|---|
| Term structure | callablesourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). Bespoke per loan: often open-term (callable on demand), otherwise fixed-term up to 12 months. 'callable' is suggested as the prevalent form per the first-day declaration; individual loans could be fixed_term. Evidence: "These loans were often open-term loans (i.e., callable on demand), but could also be fixed-term loans with maturity dates of up to 12 months." — Declaration of A. Derar Islim in support of first day motions, In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Doc 17, paras 17-19, 31, 36-39, 2023-01-20 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.17.0.pdf). |
| Rate certainty | fixed_at_originationsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). The 'Loan Fee' (annualised rate) was agreed per loan in the term sheet and changed only by further agreement of both parties. Genesis marketed 'fixed rates'. No representative rate for Genesis's USD-against-BTC lending at a given date was found (rates were not published). On an open-term loan either side could end the loan, so the agreed rate carried no term guarantee. Evidence: "the Borrower will be responsible to pay the Loan Fee as agreed to herein and annualized in the relevant Loan Term Sheet and subject to change if thereafter agreed by Borrower and Lender." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 1 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 (2020-01 to 2022-11). No external price feed is named. The one MLA quoted in the court record (GAP / Three Arrows, 2020) values collateral in US dollars 'at a spot rate determined by Lender' - i.e. the lender's own mark. Other borrowers' MLAs were individually negotiated and were not seen. Evidence: "Collateral shall always be valued in U.S. Dollars, but Borrower may, if mutually agreed by both parties, provide the Collateral (in whole or in part) to Lender in Digital Currency in an amount equal to the value of the Collateral in U.S. Dollars at a spot rate determined by Lender." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf). |
|---|---|
| Default & liquidation | thresholdsourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). The MLA let the lender demand additional collateral to restore the agreed collateral percentage; thresholds were agreed per relationship and are not public (no numeric LTVs found). On failure to meet a margin call the lender issued a default notice and foreclosed itself: with Three Arrows, margin call on 2022-06-12, default notice 2022-06-13, remedies exercised by late June 2022. Evidence: "Lender shall have the right to require Borrower to contribute additional Collateral so that the Collateral is at least the same percentage indicated in Section IV(a) relative to the value of the Loaned Assets (the "Additional Collateral")." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 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, by its own account, was entitled to and did reuse it. Third-party and tri-party custody were offered in some negotiated agreements, not seen. As the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). Collateral was transferred to the Genesis lender (by pledge and/or delivery) as security, and Genesis was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse it, including re-lending it and pledging it to other counterparties. Genesis also offered third-party and tri-party custody for loan collateral, so treatment could differ by negotiated agreement. The rehypothecation statement is Genesis's own description of its agreements with Three Arrows, made in a contested claim objection. Evidence: "GAP was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse this collateral in the ordinary course of its lending activities, including to extend new loans or to pledge to another counterparty as collateral." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
| Recourse | recoursesourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). Genesis asserted an unsecured deficiency claim of about $1.2 billion against Three Arrows after exercising remedies against collateral, i.e. the borrower remained liable beyond the collateral. The MLA makes collateral security for the loan and 'any other obligations of Borrower to Lender'. Based on one borrower relationship; other MLAs were individually negotiated. Evidence: "which exercise reduced GAP's unsecured deficiency claim against 3AC to approximately $1,198,297,320." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. |
| 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 and other digital assets (desk-held; the desk reused it)sourceAs the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). BTC was accepted as collateral (Three Arrows transferred 33,348.03 BTC, alongside GBTC shares, ETH, AVAX and NEAR). In the bankruptcy, a borrower whose collateral Genesis failed to return held a claim for it, netted under the plan's 'Setoff Principles' against what the borrower owed, all valued by the plan's conversion table; the court upheld this at confirmation (Lane, J., Doc 1691, 2024-05-17). The net amount was a claim against the estate, not a right to the coins. Evidence: "(2) 33,348.03 Bitcoin ("BTC"); (3) 17,455.73 Ether ("ETH");" — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 2 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. Loan book at failure: about $1.7 billion of active loans outstanding (GGC and GAP) as of 2022-09-30; no petition-date figure found; collateral held not found What failed: Three Arrows defaulted in June 2022 on about $2.4 billion of loans from Genesis Asia Pacific, and the collateral was worth only about $1.2 billion when foreclosed. After FTX collapsed, lenders called about $827 million of loans to Genesis, and GGC and GAP paused lending and borrowing on 2022-11-16, filing on 2023-01-19. |
|---|---|
| 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 — ⚠ NOT a posted card — Genesis lent bilaterally to institutions and never published a retail rate card, so rate_mechanism is administered and there is nothing for archived_card to recover. What exists is the voluntary quarterly reports (2018–2022), which carry aggregate originations and book figures rather than a quoted rate. NOT YET INGESTED. quantity: partial — Voluntary quarterly reports 2018–2022 — the deepest series of the era.2 — plus the bankruptcy docket as a terminal snapshot. NOT YET INGESTED. composition: none — Loan-level composition unobtainable for a wound-up institutional desk. |
What the loans are denominated in
bitcoin (borrowed against bitcoin), other — as the venue's filings state itAssets: BTC; fiat currency (unnamed); other cryptocurrency (unnamed). "Genesis Capital lent cryptocurrency and fiat currency to institutions and high-net-worth clients."; "an openterm loan of approximately 18,697 bitcoin... Rather than repaying this loan in bitcoin--the denomination of the loan" — NYAG amended complaint, https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/genesis-amended-complaint.pdf, read 2026-10-05 WARNING: the BTC here is bitcoin the desk LENT; the filing does not say those loans were secured by bitcoin, so it is not evidence of bitcoin-against-bitcoin credit.
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, by its own account, was entitled to and did reuse it. Third-party and tri-party custody were offered in some negotiated agreements, not seen. As the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). Collateral was transferred to the Genesis lender (by pledge and/or delivery) as security, and Genesis was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse it, including re-lending it and pledging it to other counterparties. Genesis also offered third-party and tri-party custody for loan collateral, so treatment could differ by negotiated agreement. The rehypothecation statement is Genesis's own description of its agreements with Three Arrows, made in a contested claim objection. Evidence: "GAP was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse this collateral in the ordinary course of its lending activities, including to extend new loans or to pledge to another counterparty as collateral." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 1 further quote(s) in registry/resolution/2026-09/defunct_desks_us.json. - sub_custodian incompleteno borrow card for this venue names one
- reuse established — the deskthe desk may lend, pledge, sell or take title to the collateral — from its terms or its own statements
source
attribute · custody_model = custodial_with_reusecustodial_with_reuse (criteria v1.2): the desk held the collateral and, by its own account, was entitled to and did reuse it. Third-party and tri-party custody were offered in some negotiated agreements, not seen. As the desk operated before it failed (2020-01 to 2022-11). Collateral was transferred to the Genesis lender (by pledge and/or delivery) as security, and Genesis was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse it, including re-lending it and pledging it to other counterparties. Genesis also offered third-party and tri-party custody for loan collateral, so treatment could differ by negotiated agreement. The rehypothecation statement is Genesis's own description of its agreements with Three Arrows, made in a contested claim objection. Evidence: "GAP was entitled to and did rehypothecate or reuse this collateral in the ordinary course of its lending activities, including to extend new loans or to pledge to another counterparty as collateral." — Debtors' Second Omnibus Objection to claims of Three Arrows Capital (quoting the Master Loan Agreement between Genesis Asia Pacific and 3AC dated 2020-01-24), In re Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, 23-10063, Doc 658, paras 55-68, 2023-09-01 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889/gov.uscourts.nysb.314889.658.0.pdf); 1 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_genesis |
|---|---|
| MCP | get_venue({ venue_id: "cefi_genesis" }) get_venue({ venue_id: "cefi_genesis", 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