On November 3, 2025, the FTX Recovery Trust quietly withdrew its motion to restrict distributions to creditors in 49 jurisdictions, including Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. The withdrawal followed pushback from over 300 creditors and scrutiny from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.
The news cycle covered China. China accounted for 82% of the affected claims — roughly $400M out of an $800M restricted bucket. The headline story made sense at that scale.
But the CIS slice of that bucket got almost no English-language coverage. And six months later, that's where the real operational story lives.
This analysis covers what actually changed for CIS creditors in practice, what didn't, where the secondary market repriced, and what three honest options remain for holders in restricted jurisdictions today.
The Withdrawal Was Without Prejudice — And Most Creditors Missed That
Most creditors who reach out to us read the November news and assumed the restricted-jurisdiction question is closed. It is not.
The Trust explicitly preserved its right to refile a new motion at any future point. The relevant language from the November 3 filing:
"If and when the FTX Recovery Trust seeks to renew the relief requested in the Motion, the FTX Recovery Trust shall file a motion and provide notice in accordance with the applicable rules."
What that means in plain terms:
- The motion was not denied on the merits — it was voluntarily withdrawn after creditor pushback
- The same motion, or a narrower version, can return
- Triggers for a refiling could include shifts in US sanctions policy, EU court rulings on Russian-resident payouts, new OFAC guidance, or compliance pressure on the three official distribution service providers: BitGo, Kraken, and Payoneer
The current window is a window, not a permanent state. Any creditor sitting on a CIS-based claim should treat it that way.
The Practical Bottleneck Did Not Move
The motion withdrawal removed the policy risk of being excluded from distributions. It did not touch the operational layer where CIS creditors actually get stuck.
Three operational bottlenecks remain unchanged after November 3:
KYC at Kroll. Russian and Belarusian passports continue to face rejection on first submission. Documentation that worked for US or EU holders — utility bills, bank statements — gets flagged when issued by sanctioned-affiliated institutions. The structural reasons behind this are unpacked in the Kroll KYC analysis for CIS creditors.
DSP onboarding. Even after KYC clears at Kroll, the three Distribution Service Providers (BitGo, Kraken, Payoneer) have varying willingness to onboard users from sanctioned countries. Belarus is the hardest under the EU's 18th sanctions package (July 2025). Russia is nearly impossible through official channels. Ukraine is workable for most holders with foreign residency.
Document chain proof. Original FTX account screenshots, KYC submission records, and proof of ownership are often incomplete or lost — especially for creditors who used self-custody flows or were trading on behalf of others. The Trust accepts the claim; the DSP needs more.
The motion was about whether the Trust would pay. The pipeline is about whether the payment can land. These are separate questions, and only one of them got resolved in November.
A creditor with a clean Class 5A claim, full KYC, and a clean bank channel can still wait months for a distribution to clear. That has not changed since November 3.
The SAC Route Became More Defensible, Not Less
Before November 3, transferring a claim out of a restricted jurisdiction had a structural legal argument: if the holder cannot legally receive payment, the assignment to a non-restricted holder is the only path to recovery under the bankruptcy plan.
That argument still works. But now it is joined by a simpler one:
The operational pipeline is broken for this holder. The assignment fixes that without depending on any future Trust motion.
In practice, every Sale and Assignment of Claim filed since November cleared Kroll within the standard 21-day Rule 3001(e) objection window. No challenges on jurisdictional grounds. The mechanism worked exactly as Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(e) was designed.
For sellers, this is the legible part of the process:
- File the SAC with Kroll, the official FTX claims agent
- Wait 21 days for any objection from the FTX Recovery Trust or other parties
- Settlement in USDT happens before or simultaneously with the SAC filing
- The buyer becomes the holder of record once the transfer is registered
The buyer takes on the operational pipeline. The seller exits the position in USDT.
The Secondary Market Repriced — But Not As Much As You'd Think
Pre-November, CIS claims traded at roughly 45–55% of face value. The discount reflected pure jurisdictional risk: the question of whether the Trust would ever pay this claim at all.
After November 3, that specific risk dropped. Pricing on clean CIS claims moved to 50–60% of face value, sometimes higher on the cleanest paper.
| Claim Type | Pre-November | Current (May 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Class 5A, clean KYC, RU/BY/UA | 45–55% | 50–60% |
| Class 5A, KYC stuck, RU/BY/UA | 35–45% | 40–55% |
| Class 7A Convenience, RU/BY/UA | 50–60% | 55–65% |
| Disputed or expunged CIS claim | Case-by-case | Case-by-case |
The remaining discount is no longer about whether the Trust will pay. It is about:
- Transfer risk. The SAC must clear Kroll; ownership chain must be clean.
- KYC verification work. The buyer takes on whatever caused the original block.
- Sanctioned-bank documentation. Statements from certain CIS banks still need workarounds.
- Time cost of running KYC twice. Once on the seller's side, once on the new holder's.
The repricing is real, but it is a 5–10 percentage-point move, not the 30–40 point jump some creditors expected when they read the November headlines.
The remaining discount is operational, not legal. It did not go away because the Trust changed a motion.
Why the Cumulative Distribution Story Doesn't Reach CIS Creditors
The fourth distribution round closed March 31, 2026, sending $2.2 billion to creditors. The fifth round is scheduled for May 29, 2026. Cumulative distributions since January 2025 now exceed $10 billion. Class 5A recovery sits at 96% of allowed amounts.
If you are a Russian, Belarusian, or Kazakh creditor — that 96% number applies to almost nobody you know.
Not because your claim is invalid. Because the agent at the end of the pipeline cannot or will not pay you, regardless of what the Trust ruled in November. Distribution policy and distribution capability are not the same thing.
The structural issue for CIS holders sits at the DSP layer (BitGo, Kraken, Payoneer), not at the Trust layer. The motion withdrawal addressed Trust policy. It did not change what the DSPs will and will not process.
Three Honest Options in May 2026
The November withdrawal made selling more legible, not less necessary.
If your KYC has been pending for eight months, if your bank statements keep getting kicked, if you watched the 96% distribution mark roll past you in the last cycle — the structural problems behind that did not get solved on November 3. They got reclassified.
1. Wait it out. If you have time, a clean bank channel, verified Kroll KYC, and successful DSP onboarding, the Trust will eventually distribute to you. Expect 2–3 more years of incremental payouts and continued operational friction. Most useful for clean Class 5A holders in Ukraine or Kazakhstan with foreign residency.
2. Sell now at the new band. Take 50–60% of face value in USDT, exit the position, and let a buyer absorb the remaining pipeline risk. Best for creditors with KYC issues, sanctioned-bank exposure, no DSP access, or limited documentation. Most CIS creditors fall here.
3. Sell partial. Rule 3001(e) allows partial assignments. Take liquidity on 50% of the claim now, keep 50% exposed to future distributions. Useful when uncertainty is high and you want to hedge between immediate liquidity and long-term recovery upside.
The window is open. Whether you sit in it or move through it depends on your own time horizon — not on any new Trust ruling.
Red Flags When Evaluating Offers in This Segment
The restricted-jurisdiction segment attracts opportunistic buyers. A few signs that an offer is not in good faith:
Offers far above the market band. If someone quotes 80%+ on a Russian or Belarusian claim, they are either not planning to pay or planning to renegotiate after you have committed paperwork. Real buyers price within the bands above.
Requests for upfront fees. Legitimate claim buyers pay you. There is no "transfer fee," "KYC processing fee," or "escrow setup fee" coming out of the seller's pocket.
No registered SAC. Every legitimate sale goes through a written Sale and Assignment of Claim filed with Kroll. Verbal arrangements, off-docket "deals," or "trust-based" transfers are not transfers — they are setups for non-payment.
Pressure on timing. "Decide in the next hour or the offer drops" is manipulation. Real offers have validity windows measured in days.
Requests for portal access or passwords. Legitimate buyers never need access to your Kroll portal. Anyone asking for your Kroll password or email access is preparing a fraud.
FAQ
Get a binding offer on your FTX claim.
Send us your claim number, class, and jurisdiction. We respond with a firm offer within one business day — no obligation to accept.
Request Claim Review →