Protecting User Funds: The Real Story Behind Gemini’s $282 Million Move

The post Protecting User Funds: The Real Story Behind Gemini’s $282 Million Move appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

Gemini, the prominent cryptocurrency platform run by the Winklevoss twins, has publicly expressed their dismay over a recent article from the New York Post. According to the platform, the story in question paints a misleading picture of the infamous Gemini Earn program.

Setting the Record Straight

The heart of the controversy revolves around a hefty sum of $282 million. The New York Post had put forth claims regarding this amount, which Gemini has since refuted. Contrary to the story’s insinuations, this money was neither linked to the private accounts of founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss nor related to the resources of their investment entity, Winklevoss Capital.

Gemini clarified that this sum belonged to users of the Earn program. The funds had been pulled back from Genesis, another entity associated with the cryptocurrency market, to fortify a protective measure known as a “liquidity reserve.”

A Protective Move Amidst Market Chaos

During the turbulent market phases throughout 2022, Gemini made a calculated move to enhance this liquidity reserve. This action ensured that users’ funds within the Earn program faced reduced exposure, particularly when Genesis suspended redemptions later that year. Looking back, the decision evidently shielded Gemini Earn users from potential financial setbacks amounting to millions, said the company.

Gemini has shown concern over the portrayal of this protective measure. They believe that their decision, which safeguarded substantial user funds, has been presented out of context, hinting at a possible manipulation of public sentiment. The company—predictably—pointed a finger at Barry Silbert and DCG for being the driving force behind this skewed narrative, especially given Silbert’s ongoing legal complications.

Gemini emphasized their openness to transparent communication and highlighted that the Post could have avoided the blunder had they sought clarity directly from the source. Instead, the hurried publication of a possibly skewed story reflects poorly on the tabloid’s commitment to its readership.