--- title: "Digital Wave Finance — Evidence records" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/digital-wave-finance/evidence-records/ as_of: 2026-10-07 keywords: ["Digital Wave Finance","DWF Labs","Darley Technologies","Turcapital","crypto market making","Swiss governance"] --- # Digital Wave Finance — Evidence records **Question.** Which records support the articles? **Answer.** Full assertions with source references, qualifications, responses and known outcomes. The topic articles explain these records in context. ## Digital Wave Finance AG: Swiss identity, board changes and audit history - Attributed: Digital Wave Finance AG is the Swiss company CHE-339.148.394, entered in the Zug commercial register on 18 December 2018. Its registered capital is CHF 100,000, divided into 1,000 registered shares of CHF 100. The register records its move from Risch to Zug in June 2023 and a change from an expressly financial-services purpose toward software, information technology and platform activities. The company’s LEI is 506700I73GHHB2FAH085. Its public recruiting material uses the dw.finance domain and describes trading and technology work in Zug. [s-d4] [s-d10] [s-d12] [s-d42] [s-d49] [s-d71] [s-d92] [s-d96] [s-d101] [s-d151] - Qualification: The retained commercial extract identifies directors and signing authority, not a complete shareholder register. LEI reporting exceptions referring to natural persons do not name the owners or establish their percentages. A directory’s absence of holdings information is not proof that no investments exist. Shared business addresses do not establish a corporate group; a recruiting page tagged Bucharest while its text requires relocation to Zug does not establish a Romanian subsidiary. Company-size estimates are employer or directory descriptions, not audited staffing figures. - Attributed: The Swiss register gives a sequence of changing mandates. Louis Raymond Bisang chaired the company at formation, moved to a board role in December 2019 and left on 7 August 2020. Michael Rendchen joined at formation, chaired from December 2019 until August 2022 and left the board on 2 December 2022. Remo Schweizer’s recorded chairmanship lasted from 23 August to 2 December 2022. Marco Schweizer joined on 18 December 2019; later entries give him individual signing authority, then the chairmanship, and from 6 August 2024 the sole board seat. Irène Saxer progressed from procuration in May 2022 to a board seat in October 2023; she and Marc Philipp Prinz left on 6 August 2024. [s-d4] [s-d10] [s-d21] [s-d25] [s-d28] - Qualification: These are register-entry dates. Later publication dates in directory notices must not silently move an appointment or resignation. A board mandate does not establish equity ownership. The historical management network must not be presented as the current board. - Outcome: The audit-waiver period ended with the October 2023 change. Strasser & Vögtli’s audit appointment ran from 31 October 2023 until its removal on 22 January 2024; JURISAUDIT was entered on 12 March 2024. - Attributed: Marc Philipp Prinz’s firm biography identifies him as a VISCHER partner and employment-law practitioner; his former DPD Switzerland board role is separate from his brief DWF mandate. The auditor JURISAUDIT is the Swiss company CHE-114.623.136, formerly Swiss Compliance Services. Strasser & Vögtli Treuhand is CHE-110.056.712 and has its own board, signing officers and audit provider. Their client networks and professional rosters explain service connections without merging the firms. [s-d27] [s-d79] [s-d87] [s-d104] [s-d193] - Qualification: A lawyer’s profession does not establish the precise purpose of his DWF board appointment. An audit appointment is not a finding that every transaction was proper or that fraud was excluded. Other audit clients and the auditor’s own officers are professional connections, not DWF owners or participants in every allegation. ## Digital Wave Finance and VRM: exchange access, the Latvian vehicle and Black Ocean - Attributed: Contemporary investigative reporting traces the Swiss trading operation to former IMC traders Marco and Remo Schweizer and Michael Rendchen. Grachev’s exchange relationships helped the operation obtain low fees and access to Huobi Russia, then other venues. The report describes VRM Trade as a later joint venture or brand: the Swiss operation handled major-exchange trading while Grachev handled exchange relationships and smaller venues. Reported internal records put the business on more than ten exchanges by late 2020 and describe preferential tiers on Binance, Bitfinex and OKEx. These advantages made high-volume automated trading cheaper for the firm and teams using its subaccounts. [s-d6] [s-d254] [s-d309] - Qualification: Reported profit, capital and trading-volume figures are not audited accounts. Grachev’s retrospective account places preferential Huobi access in April 2018, before the Swiss company’s December incorporation and before other sources place his Huobi Russia appointment. That chronology is unresolved. A brand’s retrospective 2018 trading history is not a 2018 incorporation date for the later Singapore company or Latvian vehicle. The unnamed Cayman trading company in his interview is not identified as a specific legal entity. - Response: Grachev describes a self-funded trading business with no outside investors, a Swiss data centre and proprietary systems. His account is retained as his explanation rather than independently verified financial performance. - Attributed: VRM Trade’s public history and the Latvian Vroom entity describe different things. Vroom, registration 40203277712, was incorporated in December 2020; the official notice records Grachev leaving its board in March 2023, and the directory records liquidation in June 2023. The brand’s claimed trading history went back to 2018. The later Black Ocean proposal described a dark pool and broker liquidity service built around the FLY token. Original reporting cited a March 2021 announcement of US$4.3 million raised, then an unnamed insider’s account that the exchange never launched and investors were not reimbursed. [s-d6] [s-d45] [s-d175] [s-d176] [s-d179] [s-d254] - Qualification: The insider’s account is attributed reporting, not a court finding, and a token project’s funding is not audited revenue of the Swiss AG. The record describes subsequent acquisition of the FLY project by VRM Korea and continued development at the time of the 2023 report. It does not prove the status of every later product. An empty directory accounts table does not establish zero activity or an illicit company. - Response: The company’s contemporary promotion described its launchpad as offering refunds when token performance failed specified conditions. That marketing claim is not adopted as a guarantee of risk-free investment. The original reporter sought comments from the named participants; the retained article does not supply an individual answer to every Black Ocean allegation. ## Turcapital and Digital Wave Finance: historical overlap and a substantive denial - Attributed: Turcapital AG, CHE-160.336.941, is the separate Swiss company formerly named Digital Wave Assets AG, registered on 16 December 2019 and renamed in February 2025. Its history records Bisang as chair, Rendchen and Remo Schweizer leaving in September 2020, Tobias Straube joining the board and Tobias Widmer joining in September 2026. Capital increased from CHF 100,000 to CHF 1 million in 2024, including a CHF 650,000 debt conversion. The retained October 2026 FINMA list names Turcapital as an authorized portfolio manager supervised by OSFINcontrol AG. [s-d6] [s-d13] [s-d244] [s-d299] - Qualification: Shared early directors, brand descriptions and business addresses do not prove that Turcapital is owned by Digital Wave Finance. FINMA’s entry applies to Turcapital, not automatically to the Swiss subject, Darley or every DWF-branded entity. A partly recognized PDF search cannot certify that the subject has no authorization. A historic LEI address for Digital Wave Assets and a later directory address for DWF do not alone prove contemporaneous co-occupation in 2020. - Response: Tobias Straube, speaking as COO of Digital Waves, expressly denied active business, collaboration or transactions between his company and DWF/DWF Labs, while acknowledging limited relationships involving individual shareholders. That denial qualifies the otherwise visible shared-person network. ## Digital Wave Finance and Darley: shared team, separate company and Rendchen’s departure - Attributed: Darley Technologies AG, CHE-148.754.173, was registered on 6 May 2021 with CHF 1 million capital. Its formation record describes an in-kind contribution of 30.0464807 bitcoin for 100 million shares of CHF 0.01. Rendchen’s chairmanship ended on 19 October 2022; Clement Florentin became chair, with Marco and Remo Schweizer on the board. Florentin described the brands as sharing much of their team while separating spot and futures activity from options, derivatives and requests for quotes. A July 2026 job listing on the DWF recruiting account names Darley as its department and describes work for Darley. [s-d6] [s-d14] [s-d114] [s-d313] - Qualification: Shared directors, a historical shared business site and a recruiting account support an operational connection, not a complete direct-shareholding chain. The register’s board list does not itself prove the reported founding shareholder allocations. The 2025 purpose amendment and 2026 recruiting evidence concern different dates from formation. - Response: Rendchen told the original reporter that he had no operational role in Digital Wave Finance or Darley after leaving their boards in 2022, had never held an operational role in DWF Labs and retained no interest in DWF Labs after his 2022 departure. ## DWF Labs: Singapore entity, group brand and the BVI authorization - Attributed: The Singapore entity is DWF LABS PTE. LTD., UEN 202220906H, incorporated on 16 June 2022. The retained directory reports SGD 50,000 ordinary share capital and ten officers in its September 2026 snapshot, but does not expose their names. Contemporary reporting identifies Grachev, the Schweizer brothers and Rendchen as initial shareholders, Florentin joining in December 2022, and additional partners joining in January 2023. A separate press account reported 27% each for Grachev and the two Schweizers. DWF Labs’ own 2022 announcement described it as part of parent company Digital Wave Finance. [s-d6] [s-d16] [s-d18] [s-d43] [s-d44] [s-d70] [s-d94] [s-d163] [s-d291] - Qualification: Those are dated, differently sourced observations. The historic 27% figures are not a reconstructed current capitalization table. Hidden names and changing shareholder counts cannot identify the current owners. The DWF Labs brand spans more than one jurisdiction; generic brand activity is not automatically an obligation or asset of the Singapore company or the Swiss AG. Parent wording in a release or directory remains a reported group description, not proof of an exact current direct equity chain. - Response: Rendchen expressly says his interest ended in 2022. The archive does not establish a later reversal of that account. - Attributed: The BVI Financial Services Commission’s register identifies DWF MaaS Limited, trading as DWF Labs, as a virtual-assets service provider authorized for exchange between virtual assets and services connected with an issuer’s offering or sale. A 3 September 2026 DWF announcement describes a group entity receiving that approval. Separately, DMCC’s March 2023 announcement described a US$5 million growth platform with DWF Labs and a proposed DWF Ventures Studio, following the February partnership event. [s-d121] [s-d163] [s-d173] - Qualification: The BVI registration belongs to the specifically named entity, not automatically to Swiss Digital Wave Finance or the Singapore company. The DMCC initiative is an announced program, not proof that all promised investments occurred or that every group activity is licensed. Claims about serving more than eighty exchanges or incubating Falcon Finance are company descriptions rather than audited market-share evidence. ## The Schweizer and Rendchen mandates: separate Swiss companies and unresolved Polish matches - Attributed: The directors also appear in separately identified Swiss companies. Rendchen is the sole board member of Bytom Capital Holding AG, CHE-488.131.643, registered on 7 January 2025. Remo Schweizer is recorded at Legacy Shift AG, CHE-173.013.513, while his BITWave AG mandate ended in the March 2024 publication history. Marco Schweizer is the sole board member of CTRL Shift AG, CHE-186.038.669, registered on 29 December 2025, and replaced Hans-Peter Schweizer on the board of Nial AG in the 2020 history. Nial’s much older legal identity and changed business purpose are independent of the DWF brand. [s-d22] [s-d23] [s-d25] [s-d53] [s-d54] [s-d80] [s-d308] - Qualification: A holding-company name, similar purpose, shared office or a director’s surname does not prove that these companies own DWF or are DWF subsidiaries. CTRL Shift’s formation disclosure does not show a contribution of DWF shares. Board succession at Nial does not prove a share acquisition or a family relationship. Dates of register entry and public notice remain distinct. - 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. ## Louis Bisang: former DWF director, finance roles and historical hospitality interests - Attributed: Bisang’s wider professional record includes Qore Invest AG, WMZ Holding AG, the Tie-Break foundation and Turicum Private Bank. Qore’s history names him as sole board member and Christian Oliver Spring as managing director. WMZ is a separate holding company with several directors. Turicum Private Bank Limited is the Gibraltar company numbered 47119; its published governance describes Louis Bisang as an executive director representing a shareholder group, while Raymond Bisang is honorary chairman for life. The former Ares Sport company became Centara Research AG in 2024, with Louis and Raymond leaving its board as its name and seat changed. [s-d51] [s-d81] [s-d113] [s-d144] [s-d145] [s-d147] - Qualification: These capacities are not proof that Swiss DWF owns the bank, foundation, property companies or their customers. Representing a shareholder group does not identify Bisang’s own equity percentage. The record does not infer a family relationship from names. A historical database label about termination of a registration at the old seat must not be turned into liquidation of the continuing Centara company. - Attributed: The hospitality records distinguish equity from management. Kultstatus GmbH’s formation described Bisang holding ten of twenty CHF 1,000 units, or 50%. Sanapa GmbH’s 2022 formation allocated him five of thirty units, exactly one-sixth, alongside five other participants; it also records joint-signature management. Dros GmbH’s retained 2021 record gives him thirty of three hundred units, or 10%, while ending his management role. His Club Bellevue board mandate ended in November 2018, Fusion Kitchen chairmanship in July 2019 and Zollywood board mandate in November 2021. [s-d51] [s-d89] [s-d117] [s-d118] [s-d146] [s-d148] [s-d194] [s-d195] [s-d197] - Qualification: One-sixth is not a precise 17% interest. A continuing participant is not necessarily a continuing manager. Later business-site overlap and Marco Ammann’s other appointments do not convert these establishments into DWF subsidiaries. Fusion Kitchen’s later deletion and each person’s earlier departure are separate events; the former DWF director’s unrelated companies are not current subject assets. ## Andrei Grachev: public roles, older complaints and the limits of namesake evidence - Attributed: 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. - Attributed: 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. ## Digital Wave Finance and FTX: a dated equity holding and separate exchange exposure - Attributed: The FTX bankruptcy equity-holder list filed on 9 January 2023 records Digital Wave Finance AG holding 381,534 Series B preferred shares. Separately, Grachev described DWF Labs as having funds on the failed exchange. In November 2022 DWF Labs publicly said it had minimized the impact of FTX’s collapse and would continue supporting projects. [s-d6] [s-d55] [s-d70] - Qualification: An equity interest in FTX and a balance held on an exchange are different exposures. The statement did not establish zero loss or that the group was unaffected. The shareholder schedule is a dated holding record, not the present value of that investment, and the archive does not supply a final recovery calculation for this particular holding. ## DWF Labs: token purchases, price-management allegations and substantive responses - Attributed: Original reporting based on proposals, contracts and client conversations separates liquid-token purchases, locked-token investments and market-making services. Three reviewed liquid-token deals contemplated daily purchases at discounts of 5–15%, often in US$100,000–150,000 tranches. Locked-token examples used larger discounts and one- or two-year lockups. Market-making proposals included token loans and call options. These structures explain why a public announcement described as an investment need not mean an equity round or immediate payment of the entire announced sum. [s-d223] [s-d254] - Qualification: The sample does not establish identical terms across every DWF transaction. A proposal is not a completed trade, and a call option is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. Reporting also described uneven client reports, including one client who independently confirmed that services were being provided. The publisher disclosed that a rival market-maker’s CEO was a minority shareholder and had previously sat on its board; that interest is relevant context, not proof that the documents are false. - Response: Grachev said exchange transfers did not mean immediate dumping and that most recent purchased tokens had not been sold in the April 2023 interview. He later said DWF would announce transactions only after completion. In his September interview he described an autonomous, market-neutral trading system and denied manual intervention or manipulation. - Attributed: The same reporting described an early DWF Labs client deck discussing price management, order-book positioning around announcements and the ability to provide artificial volume. It also reported authenticated executive messaging about a client’s desired token-price increase. These were document-based journalistic allegations about communications and offered services, not a regulator’s determination that each proposed technique was used in a particular trade. The report said more recent decks had phased out some price-management wording. [s-d223] [s-d254] [s-d266] - Qualification: Price movements after a partnership do not by themselves prove causation or manipulation. Competitors’ public criticism is not an independent judicial finding. The reporter expressly said it had not established that the named token projects had price-management conversations with DWF. That limit must remain attached to the visible counterparties. - Response: DWF Labs declined comment or an interview for the December 2023 investigation. In a separate September interview Grachev explicitly denied manipulation, attributed sharp moves to thin liquidity and other traders, and described the firm’s strategy as autonomous and market-neutral. - Attributed: The Algorand Foundation described its US$50 million transaction as an OTC purchase of ALGO in tranches completed in July 2023. Its representative said their negotiations never suggested moving the market or supplying artificial volume. The EOS Network Foundation described a US$45 million token purchase plus a separate US$15 million ecosystem-investment commitment and praised the partnership’s results. A Floki representative said its US$5 million token-sale relationship brought exchange access, introductions and responsive support. [s-d223] - Qualification: The EOS purchase and commitment are separate components; a future commitment is not automatically money already invested. These counterparties’ favorable accounts qualify the broader criticism without independently certifying every other DWF trade. Their token sales do not imply that DWF acquired corporate equity in the foundations. - Attributed: May 2024 reporting, relaying the Wall Street Journal’s investigation, said a Binance surveillance team had alleged that DWF Labs manipulated token prices and conducted more than US$300 million of wash trades in 2023. The reported figure concerned trading volume, not a proved US$300 million profit or investor loss. The reports said the team recommended removing the client and that its head was subsequently dismissed. [s-d16] [s-d69] [s-d215] [s-d246] [s-d252] - Qualification: These are reported internal findings disputed by the companies, not a public court judgment against DWF. YGG trading narratives and secondary retellings share the same originating investigation and are not separate independent proofs. Photographs of wealth are not evidence of market manipulation. - Response: Binance said the evidence was insufficient or not fully substantiated, rejected the suggestion that it permitted market abuse and described its surveillance and offboarding program. DWF called the allegations unfounded and distortive of its business practices. Heng Yu Lee characterized the attacks as driven by competitors. These denials remain beside the allegation rather than in a remote appendix. ## DWF Labs and Binance: surveillance allegations versus the exchange’s own cases - Attributed: Official US releases identify separate proceedings against Binance entities. In December 2023 the CFTC announced a consent order against Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Holdings (IE) Limited, Binance (Services) Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao, with US$2.7 billion payable by Binance to the CFTC. The SEC’s 2023 civil case against Binance, US affiliates and Zhao later ended with a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice filed on 29 May 2025. [s-d265] [s-d283] [s-d285] [s-d306] - Qualification: Neither release names Digital Wave Finance or DWF Labs as a defendant. Binance’s own enforcement history is context for the exchange and its surveillance, not a transferable finding against all customers. Aggregated screening records and regulatory warnings need exact legal identities and cannot be read as sanctions designations of the DWF group. The SEC dismissal does not erase the separate CFTC consent order. ## DWF Labs and WLFI: token investment and the senator’s records request - Attributed: DWF Labs’ reported US$25 million WLFI token purchase became part of a May 2025 preliminary inquiry led by Senator Richard Blumenthal into World Liberty Financial and potential conflicts involving the US president’s cryptocurrency ventures. The 6 May letter to WLFI co-founder Zach Witkoff requested records, including communications with DWF Labs. It cited concerns about alleged market manipulation and the management’s earlier Russian business connections. A separate report dated the purchase to 4 April and described 250 million governance tokens. [s-d16] [s-d65] [s-d283] - Qualification: The letter is an official request expressing concerns, not a sanctions designation, criminal charge or judgment against DWF. Its cited allegations still depend on their underlying evidence and denials. Buying governance tokens is not proof of corporate equity or control of WLFI. Timing near policy changes does not by itself establish a quid pro quo. - Response: DWF’s substantive denial of the underlying manipulation allegations is retained in the market-conduct section. The retained letter does not include a DWF response to the senator or establish the final result of his inquiry. ## DWF’s unnamed affiliate and Interactive Strength: the actual financing terms - Attributed: Interactive Strength’s SEC-filed prospectus describes a 10 June 2025 financing involving the issuer and its wholly owned Treasury subsidiary as borrowers, and unnamed entities affiliated with DWF Labs and ATW Partners as investors. Together they paid US$50 million for notes with US$55,555,555 principal, a 10% original-issue discount, 12% interest and an eighteen-month maturity. The agreement also allowed additional notes up to US$444,444,445 principal. The notes could convert into issuer shares or exchange into FET tokens under specified conditions. [s-d165] - Qualification: The filing does not allocate the entire initial funding to DWF or name the exact DWF-affiliated lender in this passage. Potential additional issuance is not cash already advanced. The accepted graph therefore uses a separately identified unnamed DWF-affiliated investor, rather than assigning a US$500 million loan to the Swiss AG or Singapore company. The embedded balance is explicitly dated August 2025 even though the prospectus was filed later. ## DWF Labs and MOTHER: a market-maker allegation in a case against the promoter - Attributed: The complaint filed on 4 May 2026 in Kolbrak v Kelly, SDNY 1:26-cv-03681, alleges misleading promotion of the MOTHER token and its proposed commercial uses. It describes the July 2024 DWF Labs partnership, token inventory supplied to market makers and an alleged price surge after the announcement. Its named defendant is Amethyst Amelia Kelly, known as Iggy Azalea, alongside unidentified Doe defendants; DWF Labs is discussed as a market maker but is not a named defendant in the retained pleading. [s-d160] [s-d161] - Qualification: The plaintiff’s account is an allegation, not an adjudicated finding that DWF manipulated MOTHER or caused the token’s decline. Unidentified Doe defendants cannot simply be replaced with DWF. The complaint itself says holders had no equity in the promoter’s businesses. A limited docket-name search cannot establish that a person or company has no other litigation. - Response: The retained filing does not contain a substantive DWF answer. No final merits outcome for this complaint is established in the material reviewed here. ## Eugene Ng: DWF Labs and OpenEden removals after a reported allegation - Attributed: In October 2024 a woman publicly alleged that a DWF Labs partner had spiked her drink during a work-related meeting in Hong Kong. DWF announced immediate removal of a partner from management and operations while investigating; subsequent reporting quoted Grachev identifying Eugene Ng as that partner. OpenEden also announced removal of a team member from management and operations. The later report said the complainant had contacted police and that Grachev’s team was considering further legal action. [s-d219] [s-d239] - Qualification: The company actions are established through the contemporaneous statements and reporting; the underlying allegation is not presented as a conviction. Considering legal action is not the same as filing a lawsuit. The retained material does not establish a subsequent charge, trial result or final civil disposition. The complainant’s identity and unnecessary personal details are withheld. - Response: DWF described the allegations as concerning and unacceptable and said it was investigating. Ng did not respond to the later reporter’s request; nonresponse is not an admission. Grachev did not provide further comment to that outlet. ## Digital Wave Finance: the Swiss company, DWF Labs and the limits of the group network - Documented: Digital Wave Finance AG is a Swiss company registered in December 2018, now based in Zug. Its registered capital is CHF 100,000. The corporate record establishes a sequence of directors, rather than one unchanged founding team: Louis Bisang left in 2020, Michael Rendchen and Remo Schweizer left the board in 2022, and Marco Schweizer became its sole board member in August 2024. This matters when interpreting a network that also contains their historical roles. [s-d4] - Qualification: A board appointment or signing authority is not proof of a shareholding. The retained register does not provide a complete current ownership table for the Swiss company. - Analysis: DWF LABS PTE. LTD. is a separate Singapore company, incorporated in June 2022. DWF Labs is also the public-facing brand used across a wider business network. Contemporary reporting connects its initial shareholders to Grachev, the Schweizer brothers and Rendchen, and records later additions. A further entity, DWF MaaS Limited, appears in the British Virgin Islands regulator’s register as a virtual-assets service provider trading as DWF Labs. [s-d94] [s-d6] [s-d121] - Qualification: These records do not establish that the Swiss AG, Singapore company and every DWF-branded activity are the same legal person. Historical shareholder descriptions are not a current capitalization table, and the BVI authorization applies to the named licensee. - Response: Rendchen says his interest in DWF Labs ended in 2022 and that he never held an operational role there. - Analysis: The business connection is clearer than the complete ownership chain. Reporting describes former IMC traders applying automated strategies to cryptocurrency markets, with Grachev helping obtain exchange access and favorable trading fees. Darley’s Clement Florentin described overlapping teams: Digital Wave Finance concentrated on spot and futures trading, while Darley pursued options, derivatives and requests for quotes. That explains why the same people and brands recur in the records. [s-d6] - Qualification: Shared personnel and an operational relationship do not, by themselves, identify which company owns another. Reported trading history and brand launch dates must also be distinguished from legal incorporation dates. - Response: Rendchen says he had no operational role in Digital Wave Finance or Darley after leaving their boards in 2022. - Analysis: Turcapital AG, formerly Digital Wave Assets AG, illustrates the limit of a shared-person network. Its early directors overlapped with Digital Wave Finance, and the retained FINMA list identifies it separately as an authorized portfolio manager. Those links merit explanation but do not establish that it is a DWF subsidiary or that its license covers the Swiss trading company. [s-d13] [s-d6] [s-d299] - Qualification: The corporate identities and regulatory permissions remain separate. - Response: Tobias Straube, speaking for the former Digital Wave Assets business, expressly denied active business, collaboration or transactions with DWF/DWF Labs while acknowledging limited relationships involving individual shareholders. - Analysis: DWF Labs’ deal announcements are easier to interpret once token purchases are separated from equity investment. Original reporting examined liquid-token purchases at discounts of 5–15%, often paid in daily tranches, alongside locked-token deals and market-making contracts involving token loans and call options. An announced investment can therefore describe a token transaction rather than an ownership stake in the project’s company; an agreement or future commitment is also different from cash already paid. [s-d223] [s-d254] - Qualification: The examined deals are a sample, not a statement that every transaction used identical terms. A token loan or call option is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. The publication disclosed that a competing market-maker’s CEO was a minority shareholder and had previously served on its board; that interest is relevant context, not proof that the reported documents were false. - Response: Grachev said transfers to exchanges did not mean immediate token sales. He described an autonomous, market-neutral system, denied manipulation and said DWF would announce transactions only after completion. - Analysis: Some counterparties gave favorable accounts. The Algorand Foundation described its US$50 million ALGO transaction as an OTC purchase completed in tranches in July 2023 and said negotiations never involved moving the market or creating artificial volume. EOS described a US$45 million token purchase plus a separate US$15 million ecosystem commitment and praised the results. Floki described useful exchange introductions and responsive support after a US$5 million token sale. [s-d223] - Qualification: These responses qualify the wider criticism without proving the terms or performance of unrelated trades. A commitment is not automatically money already invested, and token purchases are not automatically corporate equity. - Attributed: The specific price-management allegations concern communications, not simply a chart moving after a partnership. Original reporting described an early sales deck discussing price management and artificial volume, plus authenticated executive messages about a client’s desired price increase. The report also said later decks had removed some of that language. It did not establish that every suggested technique was used or that the named token projects had such conversations with DWF. [s-d223] [s-d254] - Qualification: A proposal is not proof of an executed trade; a price change alone does not establish causation or manipulation. These are attributed journalistic findings, not a regulator’s determination. - Response: DWF declined comment for that investigation. In a separate interview, Grachev denied manipulation and attributed sharp price moves to thin liquidity and other traders. - Attributed: A separate May 2024 report described a Binance surveillance team alleging that DWF Labs had manipulated token prices and conducted US$300 million in wash trades in 2023. The figure refers to alleged trading volume, not a proven profit, investor loss or court award. Reporting about a surveillance employee’s dismissal after the internal report raised questions about how Binance handled those findings. [s-d69] - Qualification: The retained account is disputed reporting about an internal investigation, not a public judgment against DWF. Repeated reports based on the same investigation are not separate independent proofs. - Response: Binance said the evidence was insufficiently substantiated and rejected suggestions that it permitted market abuse. DWF called the allegations unfounded and distortive of its business practices. - Analysis: The FTX bankruptcy record supplies a concrete, differently scoped exposure: a schedule filed in January 2023 lists Digital Wave Finance AG with 381,534 Series B preferred shares. Separately, Grachev described DWF Labs as having funds on the exchange. An equity holding and an exchange balance are different claims on a failed business and should not be combined into an invented loss figure. [s-d55] [s-d6] [s-d70] - Qualification: The share schedule does not value the investment or establish a final recovery. The retained material does not support a conclusion of zero exposure. - Response: DWF Labs said in November 2022 that its risk controls had minimized the impact and that it would continue supporting projects. - Analysis: Interactive Strength’s financing disclosure demonstrates another attribution risk. In June 2025, unnamed entities affiliated with DWF Labs and ATW Partners jointly paid US$50 million for notes with approximately US$55.6 million principal. The terms allowed additional notes, carried interest and an original-issue discount, and permitted conversion into shares or exchange into FET tokens. The much larger potential issuance was a contractual facility, not proof that the full amount had already been advanced. [s-d165] - Qualification: The passage neither identifies the precise DWF-affiliated lender nor allocates the whole initial payment to it. The graph therefore does not label the Swiss AG as a US$500 million lender. - Analysis: The reported US$25 million WLFI token purchase appears in Senator Richard Blumenthal’s May 2025 preliminary inquiry into potential conflicts involving the US president’s cryptocurrency ventures. His letter requested records from WLFI, including communications with DWF Labs, and cited concerns about market manipulation and earlier business connections. [s-d65] [s-d69] - Qualification: The letter expresses concerns and requests information; it is not a DWF sanctions designation, criminal charge or judgment. Governance tokens do not automatically confer corporate equity, and the retained material does not establish the inquiry’s final result. - Response: DWF’s substantive denial of the underlying manipulation allegations remains relevant to those cited concerns. - Analysis: Binance’s own US proceedings must also be kept separate from allegations about its customers. The December 2023 CFTC consent order imposed US$2.7 billion in payments on the named Binance entities. The separate SEC civil action later ended with a May 2025 joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. Neither record names Digital Wave Finance or DWF Labs as a defendant. [s-d285] [s-d306] - Qualification: The SEC outcome does not erase the distinct CFTC order, and neither outcome transfers liability or clearance to a trading customer simply because it appears in the same network. - Attributed: Two further chapters distinguish allegations from procedural outcomes. The May 2026 MOTHER-token complaint discusses DWF Labs as a market maker but does not name it as a defendant. Separately, DWF Labs and OpenEden announced management and operational removals after an October 2024 drink-spiking allegation; subsequent reporting identified Eugene Ng as the partner involved. [s-d161] [s-d219] [s-d239] - Qualification: The MOTHER account is a plaintiff’s pleading, not an adjudicated finding against DWF. An employer’s removal of a partner is not a conviction, and the retained record establishes no later charge, trial result or final civil disposition for the allegation. - Response: DWF said it was investigating and described the allegation as concerning and unacceptable. Ng did not respond to the later reporter; nonresponse is not an admission. ## Sources - [s-d4] Corporate registry concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Canton Zug commercial register - [s-d10] Other source · s-d10 - [s-d12] Other source · s-d12 - [s-d42] Other source · s-d42 - [s-d49] Other source · s-d49 - [s-d71] Other concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce - [s-d92] Other source · s-d92 - [s-d96] Other source · s-d96 - [s-d101] Other source · s-d101 - [s-d151] Other source · s-d151 - [s-d21] Other source · s-d21 - [s-d25] Other source · s-d25 - [s-d28] Other source · s-d28 - [s-d27] Other source · s-d27 - [s-d79] Other source · s-d79 - [s-d87] Other source · s-d87 - [s-d104] Other source · s-d104 - [s-d193] Other source · s-d193 - [s-d6] Media source · s-d6 - [s-d254] Company statement source · s-d254 - [s-d309] Other source · s-d309 - [s-d45] Other source · s-d45 - [s-d175] Other concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Latvian official gazette - [s-d176] Other concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Latvian official gazette - [s-d179] Other source · s-d179 - [s-d13] Corporate registry concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Canton Zug commercial register - [s-d244] Other source · s-d244 - [s-d299] Regulatory record concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority - [s-d14] Corporate registry concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Canton Zug commercial register - [s-d114] Other source · s-d114 - [s-d313] Company statement source · s-d313 - [s-d16] Media source · s-d16 - [s-d18] Other source · s-d18 - [s-d43] Other source · s-d43 - [s-d44] Other source · s-d44 - [s-d70] Media source · s-d70 - [s-d94] Other source · s-d94 - [s-d163] Company statement source · s-d163 - [s-d291] Other source · s-d291 - [s-d121] Regulatory record concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission - [s-d173] Company statement concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Dubai Multi Commodities Centre - [s-d22] Other source · s-d22 - [s-d23] Other source · s-d23 - [s-d53] Other source · s-d53 - [s-d54] Other source · s-d54 - [s-d80] Other source · s-d80 - [s-d308] Other source · s-d308 - [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 - [s-d51] Other source · s-d51 - [s-d81] Other concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Canton Zug commercial register - [s-d113] Other source · s-d113 - [s-d144] Regulatory record source · s-d144 - [s-d145] Other source · s-d145 - [s-d147] Other source · s-d147 - [s-d89] Other source · s-d89 - [s-d117] Other source · s-d117 - [s-d118] Other concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce - [s-d146] Other source · s-d146 - [s-d148] Other source · s-d148 - [s-d194] Other source · s-d194 - [s-d195] Other source · s-d195 - [s-d197] Other source · s-d197 - [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-d55] Court record source · s-d55 - [s-d223] Media source · s-d223 - [s-d266] Media source · s-d266 - [s-d69] Media source · s-d69 - [s-d215] Media source · s-d215 - [s-d246] Media source · s-d246 - [s-d252] Media source · s-d252 - [s-d265] Other source · s-d265 - [s-d285] Regulatory record concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission - [s-d306] Regulatory record concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, US Securities and Exchange Commission - [s-d65] Regulatory record concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee - [s-d165] Company statement concerning Digital Wave Finance or the identified participant, US Securities and Exchange Commission - [s-d160] Other source · s-d160 - [s-d161] Court record source · s-d161 - [s-d219] Media source · s-d219 - [s-d239] Media source · s-d239