Tokenize Exchange Interim Judicial Managers Update

This Opinion post first appeared in my blog here: https://pwlcm.wordpress.com/2025/09/11/tokenize-exchange-interim-judicial-managers-update/

Disclaimer: This post is just for educational sharing purposes. Please do your own due diligence on any products mentioned in this post.

__

Today (11 September 2025) at 12:36pm, I received an email from the Interim Judicial Managers (IJMs) of AmazingTech Ptd Ltd, the operator of Tokenize Exchange:

The 1st Affidavit mentioned in point 5 is a 99-page document providing information on IJMs' findings. The main part of the Affidavit spans 31 pages and it provides a summary of the key points. The remaining pages are appendices providing more detailed supporting information.

I further summarized from the main part in the following bullet points:

• Tokenize Exchange is heavily insolvent.
• No real prospect of Tokenize Exchange achieving survival.
• Tokenize Exchange can't operate in Singapore as MAS had rejected their licence.
• Tokenize Exchange's plan to obtain licensing in Labuan, Malaysia is highly improbable to succeed due to the CEO Hong Qi Yu being charged with fraudulent trading.
• Tokenize Exchange's plan to obtain licensing in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates never developed past a preliminary stage, therefore not likely to proceed.
• Given that Tokenize Exchange's business is a regulated operations, it can't operate without a licence.
• With the insolvency and without any operations licence, it is highly unlikely that the IJMs will be able to implement a corporate rescue.
• Tokenize Exchange's remaining valuable assets are primarily cryptocurrency assets.
• There are currently 80 million TKX Tokens in circulation and could previously be traded on Tokenize Exchange.
• IJMs estimate that 95% of the TKX Tokens in circulation are held and owned by Tokenize Exchange and/or related entities. Around 53 million TKX Tokens have been seized by the CAD from Tokenize Exchange's digital wallets.
• IJMs' professional assessment is that TKX Tokens have little inherent value as it is a native utility token whose value is solely dependent on Tokenize Exchange's ecosystem, which can't be further developed due to insolvency and without a licence.
• Conclusion is that there is no basis for Tokenize Exchange to survive.
• In the best interests of the creditors, IJMs have filed the application to wind up Tokenize Exchange and be appointed as its liquidators.
• Based on IJMs determination of the likely asset realization, there is only approximately SGD2.6 million of current assets against approximately SGD 267 million of current liabilities owed by Tokenize Exchange.
• Tokenize Exchange's non-current assets are estimated to be approximately worth SGD1.8 million taken at face value, but likely to have zero valuation in reality.

There are some information in the appendices worth mentioning.

One is the letter dated 4 July 2025 from MAS informing Tokenize Exchange about the rejection of its MPI Licence application. As the MAS letter is marked Confidential, I shall not provide a screen capture on the letter, but to mention a few key events that led to the rejection letter:

• MAS sent a Notice of Intention to Refuse Application for MPI Licence on 26 November 2024, but grants AmazingTech an opportunity to be heard.
• AmazingTech prepared a written statement dated 13 December 2024 and presented in a meeting with MAS on 4 February as to why their MPI application should not be refused.
• After considering AmazingTech statement and presentation, MAS assessed that the statement failed to provide sufficient grounds to change their mind on application refusal, and sent the rejection letter on 4 July 2025.

One of the appendices is the full IJM Report. The report's appendix 2 shows an illustration of customers' trades:

When a customer purchase a digital asset in Tokenize Exchange, they will fulfill the transaction from their internal digital asset inventory. If the inventory is insufficient, they will purchase the shortfall from external OTC providers or other digital asset exchange. If this is done religiously, the customer should have the purchased digital asset issued to their account.

However, the IJM Report mentions Hong Qi Yu made representations that the company doesn't match all customers' trades immediately but seeks to profits from spreads between trades. This means that there might be mismatch between customers' holdings and inventory.

The report also mentions that customers' digital asset holdings were held across various wallets registered in Tokenize Exchange name but not segregated by individual customer accounts. This means that customers' digital assets are commingled with the company own assets, a clear violation of MAS requirement.

Once the IJMs succeed in winding up Tokenize Exchange and be appointed as its liquidators, they will likely liquidate whatever digital assets in the company and distribute the proceeds to creditors in proportion to their holdings. We can expect the values of TKX Tokens to be $0, and Non-TKX Tokens at market values. Creditors might still get back some values, but definitely not the full amount.