Having assisted in deterring further damage during the exploit, here is our observation as MarginX. We understand the frustration felt by token traders and the impact of the sudden price drop. These events create uncertainty and leave many feeling caught in the middle, especially when exchange decisions directly affect whether holders can recover value.
From our perspective, the reason the old FX contract has not been reactivated is clear. The contract was exploited and hackers minted a substantial number of tokens that still exist on chain. If that contract were turned back on, those tokens would remain valid and could be sold into the market, which would harm legitimate holders and drain liquidity. Because tokens on chain cannot be erased once created, leaving the contract permanently frozen is the only way to prevent further losses and avoid confusion from having two versions of FX circulating.
On the exchange side, solutions have already been proposed. Other centralized exchanges, such as MEXC and HTX, have supported the redenomination and completed the swap for their users, which shows it can be done when an exchange cooperates. The selling pressure was further enhanced by the delisting from Korean CEXs, which was expected since Korean law only allows trading on licensed local platforms. Importantly, those exchanges still enabled withdrawals, and users can continue to trade through DEXs if they choose.
Coinbase, however, has not yet acted. With the FX contract frozen, the project cannot directly access user balances, and Coinbase has not disclosed wallet addresses. This leaves Coinbase customers in limbo until the exchange makes a decision. From an outside view, the situation at Coinbase is a clear reminder of the principle “not your keys, not your tokens.” Users on self-custody wallets or exchanges that allowed withdrawals still have options, while those waiting on Coinbase are dependent on the exchange’s next move.
It is also worth pointing out that the project has made efforts to communicate throughout this process. The redenomination timeline was announced in advance, and AMAs were held to explain the swap, redenomination, and exploit response. These records are available in the forum thread itself and show that updates were shared openly rather than hidden. While communication may not solve every concern, the facts indicate that the key steps and decisions were disclosed publicly.
We have also seen comments about possible FinCEN or SEC involvement. In practice, FinCEN would only be relevant if there were money transmission or AML issues, while the SEC would only step in if FX or PUNDIAI were treated as securities. Both tokens are consistently described as utility tokens within the ecosystem. Under the Howey Test, they do not strongly meet the criteria for a security: although there is an investment of money, there is no pooling of profits, no promise of returns, and the token’s function is tied to usage rather than expectation of profit from the efforts of others. Based on this, the case for securities classification appears weak.
It should also be noted that not every post in this forum may represent the views of genuine token holders. In situations like this, individuals with other motives, including those connected to the exploit, may attempt to apply pressure or influence discussion. From an outside perspective, the most important thing is to keep the focus on verified facts and the protection of legitimate holders.
This observation is provided in good faith to clarify the situation, but it cannot be taken as legal or financial advice, and it should not be relied upon in any court or regulatory proceeding. No further response should be expected from this view once posted.
