A critical decision point lies ahead for WazirX users: the revote on its amended Scheme of Arrangement, a legally supervised recovery plan overseen by the Singapore High Court.
The Backstory: What Happened?
In July 2024, WazirX was hit by a major cyberattack that resulted in a significant amount of user funds being locked. In the aftermath, WazirX took legal steps to protect these funds and design a recovery pathway. Since the company is structured under Singapore jurisdiction, the process was brought before the Singapore High Court, which is known for its strong legal oversight and clarity in financial matters.
To address the situation, WazirX proposed a Scheme of Arrangement — a legal plan that outlines how creditors (in this case, users) could get their funds back. The first version of this scheme was submitted in early 2025 but was rejected by the court
The Amended Scheme: A User-First Plan
WazirX then submitted an amended scheme — one that focuses purely on returning user funds. The court has now reviewed this new version and said it can move to the next step: a user vote.
So while the court has not yet given full approval, it has officially acknowledged that the updated plan deserves to be put to users to vote.
Here’s what happens -
Vote YES:
- Activates the amended plan, putting it one step away from final court approval
- If a majority of users vote YES (by count and value), the Court will review and likely sanction the scheme
- Once sanctioned, first distribution will begin—structured, under legal oversight, and following a clear timeline (expected within 10 business days of the scheme being sanctioned)
- Legal protections, clarity, and transparency follow for all participating users
Vote NO:
- The plan fails and stalls
- The Court does not proceed to sanction the scheme
- No alternate plan is guaranteed
- Users lose access to the only legal path currently available—and risks further delays or legal limbo
What’s at Stake?
This revote is not a formality—it’s the only existing mechanism that has already passed legal muster and reached the user decision stage.
Without a successful vote, the process collapses into uncertainty.
Why Are People Like Sonu Jain and Toofan Urging Users to vote NO?
CA Sonu Jain — Self-proclaimed Crypto Tax Influencer (probably appointed by WazirX competitors) and also a Self-Appointed Gatekeeper has been actively campaigning for a NO vote on X since forever.
In fact, it didn't work in favour of him during the last vote - so he’s definitely going to TRY AGAIN!
This is not about protecting users—it’s about *amplifying fear and keeping users stuck in limbo. *
His messaging:
- Deliberately misrepresents the Scheme
- Spreads fear without offering a viable alternative
- Leverages the situation to boost his own visibility as a "protector" of users, while offering no legal path forward
If this was truly about user interests, he would support clarification, not sabotage. But the NO vote campaign lacks transparency and accountability—ironically, the very things he accuses WazirX of.
Romy “Toofan” Johnson — Disruptor or just an Opportunist has made multiple appearances in crypto Telegrams and comment threads pushing back against the WazirX plan.
While his X account was eventually suspended, screenshots and community posts indicate he has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the scheme, and in some cases, targeted recovery managers directly.
Here’s the thing: Toofan is not a user advocate.
He’s a self-promoter known for drama, previously linked to crypto influencer feuds and misinfo campaigns.
His criticism:
- Provides no roadmap for users
- Often includes unverified claims or personal attacks
- Diverts attention from the only legal route currently in place
So Why Are They Really Saying “Vote NO”?
Let’s be real: it’s baseless. Their actions don’t seem focused on helping users get their money back—they seem more interested in staying relevant.
People like Sonu Jain and Toofan are acting like they’re fighting for the public. But what they’re really doing is trying to control the conversation and get attention. They call themselves heroes, but they’re not offering any real solutions. Just criticism.
By spreading fear and doubt, they keep users hooked to their posts and updates. Instead of helping people understand the facts, they make them more confused and dependent.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
If the plan works without them, no one will need their advice anymore. So, they’re trying to stop it—just to protect their own image.
And let’s not forget:
There’s no proof they’ve lost money in this case. They’re not part of the official legal process either. Yet they keep making noise, without taking any responsibility if things go wrong.
They talk the loudest—but are they really helping?
But Here’s Why Voting YES Is the Only Practical Path Forward
1. It's a Legal Process Already in Motion
The amended scheme has been deemed worthy of consideration by the Singapore Court, and now just needs user approval to proceed to a final review and sanction.
By voting YES, users activate that process—legally and securely.
2. Repayment Timeline Is Defined
Once sanctioned, first distributions start within 10 business days. Voting NO stops that clock entirely—and stalls any progress. The plan is in place; all that’s needed is user support.
3. Legal Protections and Transparency
Yes vote = a court-sanctioned framework governing repayments.
No vote = no resolution, and possibly multiple legal rounds—each with cost, delay, and uncertainty.
4. Collective Power
The scheme requires majority approval in numbers and value. That means everyone’s vote matters. A strong YES turnout sends a message: users want recovery and are willing to back a structured process.
5. WazirX Has Shown Commitment
Rather than ignore feedback, WazirX returned with amendments, engaged with stakeholders, and sought court approval anew. That’s ACTION, not avoidance.
Voting YES means recognising that accountability and moving forward collectively.
Final Thought: Vote YES to Reclaim Your Crypto
WazirX’s amended scheme is the only recovery path with both:
Legal validation (accepted by court for consideration)
User consent built in (via the revote scheduled on 30th July 2025)
Anything else? Uncertain.
Longer timelines, court delays, or multiple restarts. That risks assets shrinking in value or being locked indefinitely.
A YES vote is not about unconditional trust—it’s about enabling the only viable, legal, user‑driven path toward repayment.
Want to know how to revote "YES"?
WazirX shared all details on their blog here.
Top comments (0)