Bitfinex is one of the oldest and most influential cryptocurrency exchanges still in operation. It has survived massive hacks, intense regulatory scrutiny, and crises that could have ended most competitors. Yet for all its survival stories, one question keeps resurfacing: who really owns and controls Bitfinex?
The exchange is part of a complex web of companies, including iFinex Inc. and Tether, with executives wearing multiple hats across different entities. Add in offshore registrations, secrecy around shareholding, and the blurred lines between Bitfinex and the world’s largest stablecoin issuer, and you have a recipe for controversy. This article explores the corporate structure, the personalities behind it, the crises that exposed hidden ownership links, and why this matters for the wider crypto economy.
iFinex: The Holding Company
At the top of the corporate tree sits iFinex Inc., incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. iFinex is the parent of Bitfinex, but also the parent of Tether Limited, the issuer of the USDT stablecoin. This shared parentage alone fuels much of the criticism about centralization of control.
Executives at iFinex have historically held dual roles. Jan Ludovicus van der Velde has served as chief executive officer for both Bitfinex and Tether. Giancarlo Devasini, originally a plastic surgeon turned businessman, has acted as chief financial officer and strategic architect across both firms. Their overlapping positions show how tightly bound the two companies are in practice.
DigFinex and Offshore Layers
Corporate records over the years show a patchwork of offshore companies linked to iFinex. Entities like DigFinex have appeared in earlier filings, acting as shareholder vehicles. Offshore registrations in the British Virgin Islands and other jurisdictions allow companies to legally obscure beneficial owners while minimizing reporting requirements.
This structure is not unusual in global finance, but for a company handling billions of dollars in client funds and issuing the most widely used stablecoin, the lack of transparency has drawn widespread criticism. Regulators and analysts argue that such arrangements make it almost impossible to know who the real power holders are behind Bitfinex.
Early Players: Potter, Pierce, and Others
Several early figures contributed to the foundation of Bitfinex and Tether. Phil Potter, a former banker, acted as chief strategy officer before stepping down in 2018. Brock Pierce, a controversial entrepreneur and early crypto evangelist, was connected to the origins of Tether. Over time, their involvement lessened, but their presence in leaked documents and early promotional materials revealed that Tether and Bitfinex were far from separate initiatives.
Even as executives came and went, the constant thread was that a small inner circle remained at the top, holding both decision-making and equity stakes.
The 2016 Hack and Bail-In
In 2016, Bitfinex suffered one of the largest hacks in crypto history. More than 120,000 bitcoin were stolen from customer accounts. Instead of declaring bankruptcy, Bitfinex implemented an unusual “bail-in.” Every user took a 36 percent haircut, and in return received BFX tokens.
Within a year, Bitfinex redeemed these tokens, repurchasing them with profits and share conversions. Later, some users also received Recovery Right Tokens (RRTs), tied to any future recoveries of the stolen funds.
The episode showcased two things: the company’s determination to survive, and its ability to financially engineer solutions through tokens and ownership structures. It also reinforced that ownership and governance arrangements inside iFinex were anything but conventional.
The Crypto Capital Affair
If the 2016 hack tested Bitfinex’s resilience, the Crypto Capital affair tested its governance. Around 2018, the exchange lost access to approximately $850 million held by Crypto Capital, a Panamanian payment processor that had been handling banking functions for Bitfinex. The money was frozen or seized by authorities in multiple countries.
To cover the shortfall, Bitfinex drew funds from Tether’s reserves without publicly disclosing it. Regulators later argued that this move left Tether’s claim of “full reserve backing” misleading during that period.
The scandal revealed just how closely tied Bitfinex and Tether were. Instead of being arms-length companies, they appeared to operate as parts of the same organism, shifting money around internally to plug holes.
The New York Attorney General Settlement
The Crypto Capital saga drew the attention of the New York Attorney General (NYAG). After a lengthy investigation, Bitfinex and Tether agreed in 2021 to pay $18.5 million and to stop doing business with New York residents. They did not admit wrongdoing, but they were forced to commit to regular transparency reports about Tether’s reserves.
The settlement painted a picture of a company willing to blur lines between entities, downplay losses, and delay disclosures to customers. For critics, it was proof that the ownership links between Bitfinex and Tether created conflicts of interest that left users in the dark.
The CFTC Action
Later in 2021, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission also penalized both Tether and Bitfinex. Tether was fined $41 million for historic misstatements about reserves, and Bitfinex was fined $1.5 million for unlawful commodity transactions. Again, the central theme was disclosure, control, and governance under the shared corporate umbrella.
The 2016 Hack Resurfaces in Court
Years after the hack, U.S. authorities traced billions of dollars in stolen bitcoin linked to the 2016 theft. In 2022, a couple in New York was arrested for laundering part of the stolen funds. In 2024, one of them was sentenced after pleading guilty, and billions in bitcoin were seized.
The recoveries reignited questions about who really had ownership claims to the stolen assets. Was it the exchange, the customers who had been bailed in, or token holders of BFX and RRTs? Bitfinex hinted at buybacks of recovery tokens, again using corporate tools to manage the fallout of past crises.
Why Shared Control Matters
For regulators and critics, the key issue is not only the secrecy of the ownership web but the overlapping leadership of Bitfinex and Tether. The same executives who oversee the exchange also control the stablecoin issuer that powers liquidity across crypto markets.
This concentration of control means that decisions affecting Tether’s reserves—billions of dollars that serve as the backbone of the trading ecosystem—are made by the same people who run an exchange deeply dependent on that liquidity. Conflicts of interest are inevitable, and without independent oversight, markets are left to rely on trust.
The Company’s Defense
Bitfinex and Tether argue that they are being unfairly targeted. They emphasize that:
-
They redeemed all BFX tokens after the 2016 hack, proving their commitment to customers.
-
They have cooperated with law enforcement in recovering stolen funds.
-
They now publish regular attestations of Tether’s reserves.
-
Offshore incorporation is standard in global crypto because traditional banks often refuse to work with exchanges.
From their perspective, the ownership structure reflects a founder-driven company that has survived crises through innovation, not a conspiracy to deceive.
What Would Greater Transparency Look Like?
If Bitfinex wanted to address critics, several steps could help:
-
Disclose the full cap table of iFinex, including ultimate beneficial owners.
-
Separate governance of Tether’s reserves from Bitfinex’s exchange operations with independent oversight.
-
Provide greater transparency around banking partners and custody arrangements.
-
Publish event-driven reports when intercompany transfers occur.
These are the kinds of practices that financial infrastructure companies elsewhere in the world are expected to follow.
Why It Still Matters
Today, Tether is the most widely used stablecoin in the world, often exceeding a hundred billion dollars in circulation. Bitfinex remains a major trading hub with deep liquidity. Together, they form a cornerstone of the global crypto ecosystem.
Because of their size and influence, questions about who controls them are not just academic. If insiders can move reserves, halt redemptions, or make governance decisions without oversight, the ripple effects could be felt across the entire market. In a system that is supposed to be decentralized and trustless, relying on a small, shadowy group of owners poses risks that extend well beyond one company.
Conclusion: Resilient Yet Opaque
Bitfinex has survived disasters that would have buried lesser exchanges: one of the biggest hacks in history, the loss of banking partners, and lawsuits from powerful regulators. Each time, it has managed to innovate, issue tokens, redeem obligations, and emerge standing. That resilience is remarkable.
But the opacity around ownership remains. The same tight circle of insiders controls both the exchange and the world’s most important stablecoin. For some, this makes Bitfinex a genius survivor. For others, it makes it a systemic risk hiding in plain sight.
What is clear is that ownership matters. The market deserves to know not just how many reserves back Tether, but also who controls the levers behind the curtain. Until those answers are clear, Bitfinex will remain a symbol of both the promise and the peril of cryptocurrency’s shadowy governance.
ALSO READ: HashKey Launches $500 Million Digital Asset Treasury Fund
