Community Concerns - Public Disclosure #3 - Exchequer Total Assets Withdrawn

General Commons
1

In the last community call it was stated Community Concerns #1 transfer of 22BTC from Exchequer to OKEx (Gemini?) was for the movement of FastBTC liquidity. It’s important to look at the assets that were in the Exchquer multisig address just 4 months ago and what’s in there now. Here’s why the movement of Exchequer RBTC cannot solely be from FastBTC or likely at all.

Exchequer Token Balances

The following balances were accumulated over years and currently are 0 in the Exchequer multisig wallet 0x924f5Ad34698fD20C90fe5d5a8A0ABD3b42dC711. I’ve left SOV and other tokens out.

DLLR

Transactions
Balance on Nov 25 2025: 766,980.85 DLLR
Balance on Dec 10 2025: 569,214.34 DLLR
Balance USD (Dec 10 2025): 569,214.34

BPRO

Transactions
Balance on Jan 22 2026: 3.65 PBRO
Balance USD (@ 110,209 BPRO/USD): 402,262.85

DOC

Transactions
Balance on Jan 22 2026: 55,000.00 DOC
Balance USD: 55,000.00

RUSDT

Transactions
Balance on Jan 20 2026: 100,000.00 RUSDT
Balance USD: 100,000.00

XUSD

Transactions
Balance on Dec 4 2025: 402,460.00 XUSD
Balance USD: 402,460.00

ETHs

Transactions
Balance on Dec 10 2025: 40.08 ETHs
Balance USD (@3,324.49): 133,245.55

Total Token Value Lost

1,662,182.74 USD

Or if starting on Nov 25 2025: 1,859,949.25 USD

FastBTC

FastBTC utilized a separate multisig wallet 0xe43CAFBdD6674Df708Ce9Dff8762AF356C2b454d. From balance history it looks like on the RSK side FastBTC at some points had as much as 20 BTC, but usually around 8 BTC on the RSK side. For a bridge it’s typically ideal to have equal liquidity on either end (which suggests perhaps 10 btc on either side of the bridge).

On Nov 26 2025 03:39:53 the final balance of 7.06 BTC was withdrawn from the wallet and transferred to 0xD9ECb390a6A32aE651D5C614974C5570c50a5D89 (0xD9 from here).

Hours later at 09:00:53 0xD9 transferred exactly 7 BTC out of Rootstock via Powpeg and one minute later at 09:01:30 transferred 0.07 to Exchequer multisig.

A day later Nov 27 2025 on the Bitcoin network, those 7 BTC were sent to the same OKEx exchange (Gemini?) wallet as shared in my previous Community Concerns #1.

Why this is important

Armando said the entire FastBTC Bitcoin was the reason for the $2 million dollar (22 BTC) transfer out of Exchequer in Dec-Jan, however these transactions clearly show the entire FastBTC wallet on the Rootstock side (7.06 BTC) was powpeged out of Rootstock in November. This was before Exchequer started redeeming DLLR or began converting all of it’s tokens to BTC in December.

The above transactions clearly show FastBTC was already removed from Rootstock before any transactions in Community Concerns #1 took place in December - January. Only 0.07 BTC from FastBTC ever made it to the Exchequer multisig wallet.

Hopefully this now makes sense why while I showed the balance of DLLR was 766,980.85 in November, because there was still FastBTC funds on Rootstock at that time to prevent any mistake of pointing to FastBTC funds, I start the balances above in December so there can be no confusion.

Final Notes

It would be extremely hard to share all this on a video call. I’m not making any conclusions about where this money went or why. I posted this and previous posts hoping Yago/Armando would share what happened. It’s getting hard to understand how for an exchange that makes only $500K/year a movement of the entire treasury of $2 million dollars could happen a few months ago and for Yago or Armando to not remember or have an exact answer for what this movement or “payment” was for.

I purposely left all RBTC Exchequer balances out of the above so everyone could see simply the tokens that have sat in Exchequer multisig for years in many cases were all converted in December-Jan in a single event that is unprecedented.

What stands out in my mind is two community calls ago, in reference to the treasury loss, Yago simply said “it happened.”

Exchequer currently has nothing left but SOV, POWA, and $47K worth of BTC.

If you are a community member and staker please reach out to me either on here or on Discord.

One more post to follow.

3 Likes
2

@Armando @yago @Brianna Brianna, can you build something like Sovryn as a direct competitor to this project? Are there any other community members who can pull this off?

We need:

  • Vested token release

  • Same core functionality

  • Node-based architecture

  • Built on a BTC-friendly network (Lightning would be my first choice)

  • No big upfront lockups for criminally minded founders or quasi treasury managers / traders / thieves

Bitocracy & Sovryn are phenomenal concepts. Unfortunately, when premeditated human greed gets in the way, it all goes to shit.

Seeing as this is a failure, driven by vagueness from the protocol initiators and the team, we need to build something better. Now that we have ZK tech on BTC we can also incorportate that…

I need a place that I can use my corn trustlessly… Sovryn gave me this hope, that hope is dead.

1 Like
3

They lie and deceive for a living, when you hear them talk with no difficulty about it at all it just means they have done this type of scheme before. They are used to it. To steal from others.
I bet the people who invested in yago previous ventures got also scammed.

3 Likes
4

I think it’s important to remember one simple answer to all of this is sovryn treasury funds in the last two years could have gone into funding BitcoinOS development and marketing to sell BOS tokens. That’s a very simple explanation that we’ve all been assuming was happening for years. Yago has always denied this to protect from alleged embezzlement. But it makes a lot of sense and it would be a more reasonable explanation for all of this than simple theft. Unfortunately I was really just hoping yago/Armando would simply give an explanation rather than continue ignore or hide things. I’ve always thought sovryn’s 10% of BOS must be yago’s way of paying sovryn stakers back for using their Treasury to fund a new project.

The recent layoffs among Sovryn staff and now Bitcoin OS staff highly suggests funds are commingled.

2 Likes
5

I’m trying! I’m spinning the limit order book contracts I wrote for DLLR in December to be a full Rootstock DEX called Aera Markets. The Sovryn staking community is gifted non-transferable ownership to bootstrap the DAO and secure the contracts with decentralized governance. There is an AERA token, but it solely exists for new users (non-sov stakers) to have an opportunity to buy into staking and 100% of the sale is owned by the treasury. Stakers can unstake whenever with no penalties and the Aera treasury guarantees to buy back your AERA at a minimal price difference than the direct listing price. This is because all sales of AERA are reserved for repurchasing it at a 10% discount - the treasury is essentially going to only make profits from AERA by providing market making of the token (so the treasury makes the spread, not the entire sale of the token). It’s a very simple way to allow for a community project to have 100% ownership of the contracts and 100% ownership of the treasury (which includes 100% of the sale of AERA). 10% of contract fees generated go straight into the treasury - the remaining 90% to stakers. The DAO just simply needs to pay for the server costs that I will request from the DAO every month for reimbursement (around $1200/month at current costs, but could increase depending on utilization).

I’m also open to other networks perhaps Citrea? But honestly I think Rootstock is a great network to get started and it’s plenty cheap and fast for simple token trading and lending.

If Yago/Armando are able to deliver value with BitcoinOS/Sovryn Layer to stakers for all our treasury losses that will be a huge win, but I’m at this point not interested in riding just that one horse in that endeavor. I’m trying to build what I had hoped I was funding by buying SOV to begin with, a fully featured DEX for Bitcoin users.

Btw I had tried to leave this out of the forum discussions so that my motivations in sharing all this info is not questioned. I am a significant owner of SOV and was working to try to help provide utility for DLLR originally so that we could expand the market supply of DLLR rather than it constantly shrinking from redemptions. I even offered to help build these limit order book contract into sovryn itself, but was told it’s not possible on Rootstock.

4 Likes
6

If anyone is interested in looking at exchequer balances on any date here’s a beautiful tool our community member CEK created: https://address-balances.onrender.com/

It’s quite bad. When you look at the December 1 2025 balance it shows over $3.6 million dollars (which includes the over $1 million in RBTC I purposefully left out).

That’s an amazing amount of money to go missing in 2 months. :sad_but_relieved_face: :broken_heart:

1 Like
7

Awesome tool :slight_smile: Revealing horrible things :frowning: What the fuck happened here, this is a disgrace. The tool completely debunks the silly stories Yago and Armando fed us on the call last week.@yago it also really doesn’t make you look like any sort of human being who should be in a position of leadership, given you attacked us for questioning these barefaced lies.

I want to believe that these funds have just been commingled with BitcoinOS as it would at least offer some form of explanation, even though IT WOULD STILL BE FRAUD.

But why - BitcoinOS just raised $10m last year? The funding round was announced in October. So the funds maybe arrived a few months before that, still that’s a less than 1 year window, they can’t have burned through $10m already surely

3 Likes
8

theft

N.

The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (see dishonesty). “Appropriation” is defined in the Theft Act 1968 as the assumption of the rights of the owner of the property and includes any act showing that one is treating the property as one’s own, which need not necessarily involve taking it away. For example, switching price tags from one item to another in a shop to enable one to buy goods at a lower price could amount to an appropriation (R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL), as could purporting to sell someone else’s property (R v Pitham and Hehl (1976) 65 Cr App R 45). If a person acquires property without stealing it, but later decides to keep the property unlawfully, he may be regarded as having appropriated it (AG’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182). For example, if A lends his golf clubs to B for a week and B subsequently decides to keep the clubs or sell them, this indicates that B has assumed the rights of the owner unlawfully. “Property” includes all tangible and intangible objects and choses in action (e.g. bank balances) but there are special rules in the Theft Act 1968 governing land and wild plants and animals (see poaching). Property belongs to anyone who either owns it or has physical possession or control of it. The Act expressly states that a person is not dishonest if he believes (even if unreasonably) that he is legally entitled to appropriate the property or that the owner would consent or could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps. The punishment for theft is up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Under the Theft Act 1978, obtaining goods or services without paying for them is now covered by the offence of making off without payment (see also shoplifting). Cases in which property is obtained by deception are usually dealt with as deception or fraud offences. Theft involving the use of force may amount to robbery. See also burglary; conveyance.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103634781