Public record

Multichain: Relationship to Fantom and the 2023 Failure

Relationship: Third-party infrastructure used by the Fantom ecosystem; not an Andre-founded project
Period covered: Relationship before 2022; crisis and recovery efforts from 2023 onward
Record status: Reviewed against organizational and court-linked public records
Last reviewed: June 20, 2026

Summary

Multichain was a third-party bridge with its own team. It was not a project founded or operated by me.

Fantom publicly stated in 2022 that Multichain had operated independently for years. After the 2023 failure, Fantom sued Multichain Foundation in Singapore and pursued liquidation and asset recovery. The published judgment record described Multichain's chief executive as having ultimate privileges over bridge assets.

A complete accountability record should still disclose Fantom's original due diligence, integration decisions, risk controls, and my role in endorsing or managing the relationship.

Facts at a glance

Question	Public record
Did I found Multichain?	The public record reviewed does not identify me as a founder, director, employee, or controller of Multichain.
Did Multichain have its own team?	Fantom publicly stated that it did and that it had operated independently for years.
How did Fantom characterize itself after the failure?	As a party that suffered loss and pursued legal recovery.
What did the published judgment record say about bridge control?	It described Multichain's chief executive as having ultimate privileges over bridge assets.
Does victim status eliminate integration or due-diligence responsibility?	No.

Verified public record

Independent operation

Fantom's March 2022 public statement said Multichain had its own team and had operated independently for years.

The public records reviewed here do not identify me as a Multichain founder, director, employee, bridge-key holder, or controller. That should not be expanded into a claim that I had no relationship, influence, endorsement role, or responsibility for Fantom's integration decisions.

Failure, litigation, and recovery

After the 2023 failure, Fantom Foundation:

Brought an action against Multichain Foundation.
Described itself and its ecosystem as parties that suffered losses.
Obtained a Singapore High Court judgment.
Pursued appointment of an independent liquidator and asset-recovery process.

The published judgment record described Multichain's chief executive as having ultimate privileges and control over bridge assets, contrary to representations about distributed control.

Responsibility I accept

As a prominent Fantom adviser, director, and spokesperson, I may fairly be asked what technical and operational due diligence supported reliance on Multichain.
A third-party failure does not eliminate responsibility for integration decisions, user warnings, exposure limits, emergency planning, or communications.
The public record should document both Multichain's operational independence and Fantom's partnership and risk-management choices.

What the public record does not establish

The sources reviewed for this page do not establish:

That I had no involvement whatsoever with Multichain.
That Fantom's original due diligence was adequate.
That I never endorsed or promoted Multichain.
That I had no access to any integration, wrapped-asset, or emergency controls.
That litigation and liquidation recovered all user losses.

Sources

MCH-01: A statement from the Fantom Foundation — Fantom Foundation — 2022-03-11. Source tier B; official_announcement.
MCH-02: Fantom Foundation Awarded Default Judgment Against Multichain — Fantom Foundation — 2024-03-04. Source tier B; official_litigation_update.
MCH-03: Fantom Foundation Update on Judgment Against Multichain — Fantom Foundation — 2024-07-08. Source tier B; official_litigation_update_linking_court_judgment.
MCH-04: Fantom Foundation Ltd v Multichain Foundation Ltd [2024] SGHC 173 — Singapore Judiciary — 2024-07-08. Source tier A; court_record.

Change log

2026-06-20: Initial publication.