News 
Coin Information 
About us 
Customer Service 
Bitmax (377030), formerly KOSDAQ-listed Maxt, is facing renewed scrutiny after an analysis of regulatory filings and on-chain data suggested its high-profile 'digital asset treasury' push was financed through convertible bonds and structured in a way that converted a controlling shareholder’s personal crypto holdings into corporate-held tokens—and ultimately into cash.
The ownership transition began in January 2025, when Maxt disclosed that a third-party allotment capital increase would make Meta Platform Investment Association its largest shareholder. Korean media coverage at the time linked the buyer group to Kim Byung-jin, chairman of Satoshi Holdings, with reported participation from entities such as Plaike and Deepmind Platform, later associated with Satoshi Holdings.
Within weeks, the company rebranded as Bitmax and began promoting a DAT ('digital asset treasury') strategy centered on Bitcoin (BTC). Reports also indicated a management reshuffle following the change in control, including a new CEO appointment, as the new leadership positioned the company as a public-market proxy for crypto exposure.
Filings show that after the governance change, Bitmax started acquiring Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) not through exchange purchases, but via transfers from Kim’s personal holdings. Between March 2025 and June 24, 2025, Bitmax disclosed eight separate acquisitions totaling 287.7884 BTC and 500 ETH, with an aggregate purchase value of roughly KRW 55.1 billion (about $40 million at the time).
The company framed the approach as a workaround to domestic banking constraints: in South Korea, corporations have historically faced barriers to opening bank-issued 'real-name' accounts required to trade on local exchanges. Bitmax said the controlling shareholder bought the assets personally and then sold them to the company at the same value following accounting-firm valuation, arguing that the process was reported to regulators and designed to avoid arbitrage profits.
Still, the disclosures left key questions unanswered for outside shareholders. Investors could see the disclosed quantities and purchase prices paid by Bitmax, but not the controlling shareholder’s original acquisition cost basis for the crypto, nor the underlying methodology and assumptions used in third-party valuations.
How Bitmax funded the acquisitions is where filings become more explicit. After Kim’s takeover, Bitmax carried out four rounds of convertible bond (CB) issuance totaling KRW 140 billion (about $100 million at the time), including KRW 25 billion, KRW 15 billion, and two separate KRW 50 billion tranches, each with progressively higher conversion prices. In a June 24 filing, Bitmax stated directly that proceeds from one CB round would be used to pay for the Bitcoin acquisitions.
That linkage—raising cash through CBs and using the proceeds to buy crypto from the controlling shareholder—created a circular flow that, at least on paper, turned debt financing into corporate crypto holdings while simultaneously delivering significant cash proceeds to an insider seller.
Investor participation in the CB rounds drew attention as well. Public disclosures and media reports identified Ocean in the W ($052300) and its wholly owned subsidiary USC as core participants in multiple CB tranches, contributing a combined KRW 21.6 billion. Because conversion prices ranged from roughly KRW 1,323 to KRW 2,456 per share while Bitmax’s share price later surged into the KRW 7,000 range, commentators flagged the potential for large mark-to-market gains—at least during the rally period.
Ocean in the W has been described in local reporting as connected to the family of Won Young-sik, previously associated with the Green Snake Group. Won has been on trial in relation to allegations tied to stock manipulation involving firms linked to Bithumb affiliates, according to earlier reporting, and Ocean in the W itself had previously stated it would prohibit mezzanine-style investments such as CBs across its group before later reversing course via articles of association changes, media reports said.
Additional entities reportedly linked to the same circle were also mentioned in coverage as participants or associated parties, including a firm wholly owned by Won’s son, further amplifying questions in the market about who ultimately benefited from the CB structure and subsequent equity optionality.
When the disclosed outcomes are tallied, the winners and losers appear asymmetrical. Kim, as the personal seller of crypto to the company, received about KRW 55.1 billion in cash proceeds. CB investors gained exposure to potentially lucrative equity upside as Bitmax’s shares rallied, while Bitmax itself obtained headline-making BTC holdings and was at one point promoted as a leading Korean listed company by Bitcoin reserves.
But the corporate story later deteriorated. Bitmax was designated an issue for administrative supervision in February 2026, and the company disclosed trading halts in March 2026 related to capital reduction and the reasons behind that designation. Although the halt did not persist for an extended period, the sequence raised concerns about what ordinary shareholders—particularly those who entered near the peak—ultimately gained from the 'BTC treasury' narrative.
The reporting team behind the analysis said further questions emerge beyond what filings alone reveal, pointing to on-chain traces that allegedly show roughly 550 BTC linked to wallets believed to be associated with Bitmax being sent to overseas exchanges—activity that, if substantiated, could highlight 'disclosure blind spots' between traditional public-company reporting and the real-time transparency of blockchain ledgers.
The broader implication for markets is that as more listed firms attempt to monetize or market 'digital asset treasury' models, the credibility of those strategies will hinge not only on headline reserve figures but also on funding sources, related-party dynamics, and whether on-chain movements align with what investors can verify through formal disclosures.
Comment 0