Thread by @mawworn

I've not removed funds from #Celsius, since early 2021.

I completely, reject this insidious and threatening legal over-reach. The committee's and its council's job, is to protect creditors, not set the dogs on them!

This gives precedent to attack other #Celsius creditors.

You don't protect creditors by attacking other creditors. (ponzi)

If it happens once, it will happen again. (if one asset is revalued, others will follow)

Kelvin showed there is no need for clawbacks, therefore this is a calculated legal maneuver. (precedent)

1: This one time I was in a 7/11 when it got robbed, and they didn't catch the owner/gunman, but they arrested me, because I was a customer of the store.

2: So it's prohibitively expensive because each claim needs its own mini trial, it will take so long we will have forgotten why we started.

3: Investigating or litigating hopium claims at exorbitant hourly rates for undefined amounts of time? That sounds like a fantastic idea!

4: If the threat of fronting our inquisition is causing you to become unpredictably violent, call the Government. Ciao Bella!

(Rattlesnakes a foot, call the government if we deliberately push you to the edge, with our threatening language & bearing teeth.)

To @WhiteCase:

A) Is it fair to hold retail users responsible for actions they took in good faith, based on their understanding of their rights and obligations as customers of #Celsius?

B) What evidence exists to suggest that pursuing preference claims against retail users would result in a significant recovery for the bankruptcy estate?

Do these creditors of #Celsius have to prove they acted in good faith, or do you have to prove they did not, or both?

Because it's you riding the burden of proof horse into town (on our dime), you would generally need to provide evidence to your claims against other creditors.

Expensive discovery aside.

All these creditors are going to say, is, that as customers, of #Celsius they acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the company's financial troubles.

And more or less from that point onwards, you need actual hard evidence to proceed with your clawback.

Is that what Elementus was used for, to investigate insider claim holdings?

And based on their findings, you have enough to warrant prosecution of claims?

Can we have the number of claims, you can guarantee a net profit on?

Wording certainly implies that this a completely whole other process that needs Elementus services, to look at all the creditors again to determine which ones to go after?

cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11…

If you were to say to us, we will do this PRO BONO, because we are so adamant, that serious financial crime was committed by #Celsius retail customers, that we can practically guarantee the results.

See how stupid it all sounds when you put it that way?

Contingency fee basis (This may to radical for an old #TradFi law firm)

https://twitter.com/AliDTwitt/status/1632729771527348226

Maybe W&C, K&E, #Celsius & UCC, maybe they are suggesting that if we pay for it, it's justifiable?

So how will this argument standup in court? #Celsius was not in the mainstream media until after the pause, not everyone is on Twitter, Reddit, or YouTube, etc...

News stories average 41 seconds, understandable one might miss it, the first time around. The only contact, like the over whelming majority of #Ceslians have ever had with #Celsius, is through the App interface.

I'm not seen much crime here. How much will this cost again?

So let's flip it, let's say I'm obsessively checking every flickering wick. Every news outlet, I miss nothing, and from the second it starts I observe how the bank run unfolds, so as a trader who manages a small portfolio on behalf of some clients.

Like all good professionals, I use my network connections, and get wind the bank run is gaining momentum and #Ceslius is buckling, but more importantly, that FTX has a open $200m short position on #CEL. I analyze, call my clients, and act.

By withdraw 100% of our funds.

(Does anyone else find it totally and complete amazing that a $20 million report did not mention the $200m short? That really took me back. How could this examiner, with an army of professionals under her command, miss it, all together?)

Now that information I acted on, was not, is not available to the average #Celsius creditor, as a fund manager however small, I would have access to professional services, that give a clear informational advantage to that of normal retail investors.

Here is where you then ask me to carry the burden of proof and demonstrate that I did not have access to any non-public information that gave my fund an unfair advantage over other creditors. Which I will do in a heartbeat.

Tell me how you are going to claw me back, as a non US resident, non-insider, who acted fiduciary responsible to my clients?

You simply can't, and to the payment of our tens of millions of dollars, you will keep taking the long way round.

I'm using silly examples to point out that all of this is legal maneuvering, and how hard it is to prove without evidence. Its not a mathematical necessity, to have clawbacks, or #CEL81 to build a ReOrg.

Lawyers baiting you out of your money. It's wholesale garbage.

Here's a wild, radical idea; try making us whole using cryptocurrency based initiatives. Instead of lazily reaching into the #TradFi bags of tricks.

How come Kelvin did not need clawbacks or #CEL81?

Explain that to us in great detail, please.

We would like to know how Kelvin did it, how it avoided clawbacks?

#CEL81 #Celsius @CelsiusNetwork @CelsiusUcc
Here are two out of context sentences, that explain clawbacks, perfectly;

It's emotional blackmail by the greedy arm of the law.

All aboard the gravy train!

This entire document is a thinly veiled intimidation tactic to force creditors into NovaWulf's conditions.

So they are threatening us, not #Celsius management or Alex or who ever actually committed the alleged fraud and CRIME, but us, the creditors.

With a very broad scoped, undefined, an open-ended inquisition, or vote for Novawulf.

I reject it completely & totally in its current draft.

One of the journals that was running FUD against us was Coindesk, check out their audience, enough to fuel a bank run.

Are we to understand, that if a creditor acted to save their investments from all the FUD spreading like wildfire after the Luna depeg, as preferential?