---
title: "Digital Wave Finance — Andrei Grachev: public roles, older complaints and the limits of namesake evidence"
language: en
canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/digital-wave-finance/andrei-grachev-career-and-responses/
as_of: 2026-10-07
keywords: ["Digital Wave Finance","DWF Labs","Darley Technologies","Turcapital","crypto market making","Swiss governance"]
---

# Digital Wave Finance — Andrei Grachev: public roles, older complaints and the limits of namesake evidence

**Question.** What is supported about his earlier business history and how did he respond to complaints?

**Answer.** Public career records connect the named ventures. The older debt and investment complaints are attributed and accompanied by his responses; ambiguous transport and court identities are not assigned to him.

## Public roles and unresolved identity boundaries

- Analysis: Grachev’s documented public career connects Crypsis Blockchain Holding, RACIB, Huobi Russia, Jiamix, VRM and later DWF Labs. A June 2018 Moscow Chamber of Commerce event announcement identifies Andrei Viktorovich Grachev as a RACIB vice-president and Crypsis managing partner. The retained accounts place his Huobi Russia leadership in 2018–2019, followed by Vladimir Demin; they differ on whether the appointment began in September or November. Jiamix was described as a local broker using OKEx infrastructure, not an OKEx subsidiary, and later closed. [s-d6] [s-d16] [s-d45] [s-d66] [s-d205] [s-d269] [s-d283] [s-d309]
  - Qualification: A public career or matching initials does not establish identity with every same-name Russian director or litigant. Crypsis is a reported brand here; the exact legal vehicle is not conclusively identified. Old private tax, passport and residential identifiers are withheld. A retained redacted criminal record and transport-sector name matches are unresolved leads and are not assigned as convictions or transport-company ownership to the DWF partner.

## The 2019 allegations and Grachev’s answers

- Analysis: The 2019 original reporting raised three distinct matters: Grachev’s participation in a OneLife/DealShaker event and discussion of a possible OneCoin listing; a former business contact’s alleged unpaid US$10,000 loan; and investors’ complaints about Export.Online and a separate trading arrangement. The investment-club representative said RUB 10 million went into Export.Online and repayment promises were not met. He separately alleged that a RUB 8 million trading allocation lost about 80% in three months. These were attributed complaints, not an adjudicated award against DWF. [s-d6] [s-d66]
  - Qualification: The token-sale target was an ambition, not money proved raised. The two investment amounts concern separate arrangements and must not be combined into one proven debt. The article reported that some investors were considering law-enforcement complaints; it did not establish a resulting conviction or repayment outcome. Later copied accounts do not supply independent corroboration.
  - Response: Grachev initially said he did not know of the OneCoin connection and had not discussed its listing. When confronted with the reported video discussion, he said Huobi had received neither applications nor listing documents. On the investment complaints, he attributed dissatisfaction to a falling market and said public accusations distorted the situation rather than resolving it.

## Namesake and legal-vehicle leads left unresolved

- Analysis: Some expansion leads remain outside the accepted ownership network. A Russian company with a similar Crypsis name has its own registration, founders and 2020 deletion history, but the retained record does not conclusively equate that company with the Crypsis brand in Grachev’s career. Likewise, Polish records concerning Michael Sebastian Rendchen describe real companies and capacities, but the material does not conclusively establish identity with the Swiss DWF director Michael Rendchen. [s-d6] [s-d16] [s-d46] [s-d203] [s-d209] [s-d211] [s-d234] [s-d288] [s-d300] [s-d301] [s-d303] [s-d317] [s-d318] [s-d331] [s-d332]
  - Qualification: Similar names, initials, language knowledge, business names and approximate biographical alignment are insufficient to transfer ownership or adverse findings between people. Redacted records must not be reconstructed from speculation. These leads remain explicitly unresolved in the private disposition ledger rather than appearing as verified DWF assets or accusations. Directory searches showing no litigation or no holdings are not comprehensive clearance.

## Sources

- [s-d6] Media source · s-d6
- [s-d16] Media source · s-d16
- [s-d45] Other source · s-d45
- [s-d66] Media source · s-d66
- [s-d205] Media source · s-d205
- [s-d269] Other source · s-d269
- [s-d283] Media source · s-d283
- [s-d309] Other source · s-d309
- [s-d46] Court record source · s-d46
- [s-d203] Other source · s-d203
- [s-d209] Other source · s-d209
- [s-d211] Other source · s-d211
- [s-d234] Other source · s-d234
- [s-d288] Other source · s-d288
- [s-d300] Other source · s-d300
- [s-d301] Other source · s-d301
- [s-d303] Other source · s-d303
- [s-d317] Other source · s-d317
- [s-d318] Other source · s-d318
- [s-d331] Other source · s-d331
- [s-d332] Other source · s-d332