Forem: Mamed

NSFX and Nicky Gope Kundnani: Regulatory Warnings, Rebranding into Alchemy Markets and Xoala, and the Ongoing Investor Dispute

Mamed — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:33:27 +0000

This article examines a cross-border fintech case involving regulatory interventions, loss of access to client funds, and the continuation of business activity through new brands and jurisdictions. The analysis is based exclusively on public regulatory documents, corporate registries, official disclosures, and media publications.

The case focuses on a group of companies publicly and historically associated with the business activities of Nicky Gope Kundnani (year of birth cited as 1986–1987 in various public sources). Regulatory responses in the United Kingdom and Ukraine, along with corporate activity in the United States, form the factual basis of this review.

This article does not contain judicial findings of personal liability. All information is presented with clear attribution to public sources and reflects their stated status.

Regulatory warning issued in Ukraine

On 15 May 2024, the National Securities and Stock Market Commission of Ukraine (NSSMC) published an updated list of questionable or unreliable investment projects, which included the broker project NSFX.

Official NSSMC publication:
https://www.nssmc.gov.ua/en/zakhyst-investoriv-komisiia-onovyla-spysok-sumnivnykh-investytsiinykh-proiektiv-5/

This listing constitutes a regulatory warning. It is not a court ruling or criminal proceeding, but an instrument intended to inform investors about heightened risks and the absence of regulatory protections.

Human dimension and public response

According to statements published in Ukrainian and international media, the case involves more than 147 affected individuals and companies across 14 countries, with reported losses ranging from tens of thousands to over USD 1 million per participant.

Media reports state that affected investors are planning a public protest during the international exhibition iFX EXPO Dubai 2026, scheduled for 10–12 February 2026, with the stated aim of demanding the return of funds.

Media publications reporting on this issue include:

These publications reflect the positions of journalists and affected parties rather than judicial conclusions.

Reports of pressure and threats directed at Ukrainian media

Ukrainian media outlets have reported receiving threats demanding the removal of publications related to Nicky Gope Kundnani. According to journalists, these messages were sent by an individual presenting himself as a lawyer or representative of a so-called legal department.

From-UA report:
Адвокат-шахрай розсилає погрози українським медіа, вимагаючи видалити публікації про міжнародного шахрая Nicky Gope Kundnani

The publication states that the referenced “legal department” does not appear to exist in practice. The website cited in the threatening messages, sk-legaldepartment.com, is reported to be non-functional, and the threats themselves are described as a common intimidation tactic lacking real procedural or legal force.

According to reports referenced by the Telegram channel “Ukraina Seichas”, following the publication of materials concerning the Alchemy and Xoala schemes, several websites experienced hacking attempts. Journalists report that instead of factual rebuttals, pressure tactics, threats, and alleged cyberattacks were used.

Media reports further state that all relevant materials, including threatening correspondence and technical logs related to the attacks, have been transferred to law enforcement authorities.

Regulatory intervention in the United Kingdom

On 14 April 2025, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced the introduction of a special administration regime in respect of the payment company Blackthorn Finance Ltd. According to the FCA, the measure followed serious deficiencies identified in corporate governance, risk controls, and AML procedures.

corporate governance deficiencies
risk control failures
AML compliance issues

Joint special administrators from S&W Partners LLP were appointed to manage the process.

Official FCA source:
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/blackthorn-finance-ltd-enters-special-administration

Special administration is neither standard liquidation nor bankruptcy. It is an extraordinary regulatory intervention applied when a company is unable to safely service clients, when there is a risk to client funds, or when external management is required to protect market integrity. For financial and payment institutions in the UK, it represents one of the most severe regulatory signals.

Corporate structure and public records

According to the UK Companies House public registry, Blackthorn Finance Ltd is registered in the United Kingdom under company number 10024682.

Company profile:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10024682

Filing history:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10024682/filing-history

The Officers section of the registry records that Nicky Gope Kundnani previously held a director position in the company. The dates of appointment and resignation are reflected in official filings. This confirms a corporate role but does not, in itself, establish personal responsibility for regulatory or financial outcomes.

Loss of access to client funds

Following the introduction of special administration and subsequent procedures, clients of Blackthorn Finance Ltd reported losing operational access to their funds. The recovery process has been described as lengthy and complex, and for some affected parties remains unresolved.

The central issue in this case concerns access to client-owned funds held within payment infrastructure, rather than trading losses.

Rebranding and infrastructure changes

After regulatory issues emerged around NSFX and Blackthorn Finance, entities operating under the Alchemy brand began to appear on the market.

The industry publication Finance Magnates reported that FDCTech, Inc. agreed to acquire Alchemy Group, noting that Alchemy Malta was previously known as NSFX.

Finance Magnates source:
https://www.financemagnates.com/institutional-forex/exclusive-fdctech-agrees-to-acquire-alchemy-group/

The payment brand Xoala states on its official website that it operates as a trade name of Steven AB, a Swedish company authorised as an Electronic Money Institution and regulated by Finansinspektionen.

Official legal disclosure:
https://xoala.com/legal.html

Formally, these entities represent different legal structures and jurisdictions from Blackthorn Finance Ltd.

United States corporate disclosures

FDCTech, Inc. is a US public company that discloses corporate actions through the SEC EDGAR system. A Form 8-K filing describes transactions and agreements related to the acquisition of Alchemy-associated assets.

SEC EDGAR Form 8-K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1722731/000149315225021570/form8-k.htm

SEC EDGAR filing index:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1722731/000149315225021570/0001493152-25-021570-index.htm

From a legal perspective, company registration and corporate transactions in the United States are administrative procedures. Restrictions arise only in the presence of judicial or regulatory decisions.

Third-party analytical assessments

Independent analytical platforms such as cybercriminal.com and IntelligenceLine have published profiles referencing Nicky Gope Kundnani. These materials contain evaluative statements and interpretations and should be treated as third-party assessments rather than established legal fact.

Cybercriminal.com profile:
https://www.cybercriminal.com/threats/nicky-kundnani

IntelligenceLine report:
https://www.intelligenceline.com/r/Reports/45829/niky-kundnani-and-gope-kundnanis-nsfx-scam/

Ethical and systemic considerations

A recurring question raised in public discussions is why new projects continue to attract trust and partners while obligations associated with previous structures remain unresolved.

From a risk-theory perspective, this situation is often described as a form of moral hazard, where negative consequences are borne by clients while business activity continues through rebranding and jurisdictional changes.

Conclusion and risk observations

Legally, this case demonstrates the high threshold required to establish personal liability and the fragmented nature of cross-jurisdictional regulatory oversight.

From a market perspective, it illustrates vulnerabilities faced by investors in cross-border fintech structures, particularly where payment infrastructure and supervision are distributed across multiple jurisdictions.

From an ethical standpoint, the case highlights how trust in the fintech sector may be undermined when the growth of new projects is not accompanied by the transparent resolution of prior obligations.

Legal disclaimer. This article is provided for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be interpreted as alleging criminal conduct, fraud, or personal liability. All information is drawn from publicly available sources cited above.

NSFX / Alchemy Markets / Xoala: Investors Plan Protest at iFX EXPO Dubai 2026

A group of defrauded investors says it will stage an organized protest during iFX EXPO Dubai 2026
(February 10–12), calling for the return of allegedly misappropriated funds and accountability for the individuals and structures they link to their losses. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

According to media reports, the initiative is coordinated by Hanna Kovalenko, who states she personally lost savings and is communicating the group’s position publicly. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

The protest is directed at businessman Nicky Gope Kundnani (born 1986), described as holding multiple citizenships, including U.S. citizenship. The affected group claims that key decisions across the referenced structures were effectively made under his control. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Core allegations and the rebranding chain described by the investors

Investors state they entrusted funds to Blackthorn Finance (payments) and NSFX (brokerage), expecting reliability and professional management. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
They point to regulatory actions and warnings referenced in the reporting, followed by a loss of access to client funds. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
They argue that the same business activity continued under new brands: NSFX → Alchemy Markets, and Blackthorn’s payment infrastructure being replaced by Steven AB / Xoala. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
The group further alleges that business operations and assets were moved toward the U.S. via FDCTech, Inc., presenting what they describe as a “new” fintech story while prior funds remain unresolved. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

Scale of the affected group

The initiative group claims more than 147 victims from 14 countries, with reported losses ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

Why iFX EXPO Dubai

The investors say they are going to iFX EXPO Dubai because it is a venue where they “cannot be ignored,” and they claim to have information that
Nicky Gope Kundnani will be present and speaking while promoting Alchemy Markets and Xoala. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

Note: The statements above reflect allegations and claims reported by media sources and an affected investors’ group.
They are presented as reported and do not constitute a judicial finding of liability.

Source: DS News (Feb 2, 2026)

Structural Risks and Market Uncertainty in the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem

Mamed — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 22:36:44 +0000

Structural Risks and Market Uncertainty in the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem (2026)

How regulation gaps, infrastructure dependencies, and market structure shape risk in today’s crypto economy.

Why this article exists

Cryptocurrency markets have matured significantly over the past decade.
They now involve:

centralized and decentralized exchanges

custodial and non-custodial wallets

payment gateways and on-chain infrastructure

institutional and retail participants

Despite increased adoption, crypto markets remain exposed to structural, regulatory, and operational risks that differ fundamentally from traditional finance.

This article provides a neutral overview of those risks as they exist today.

Regulatory divergence across jurisdictions

Unlike traditional financial markets, cryptocurrency regulation remains uneven:

some jurisdictions apply securities law

others treat crypto as commodities or digital assets

some impose minimal oversight

This creates regulatory asymmetry where:

the same activity may be legal in one country and restricted in another

enforcement may occur retroactively

consumer protections vary widely

Regulatory uncertainty itself is a material market risk.

Custody and asset control risks

A core distinction in crypto markets is who controls private keys.

Key models include:

self-custody (user-controlled keys)

custodial platforms (third-party control)

hybrid arrangements

Risks arise from:

loss or compromise of keys

platform freezes or service suspensions

legal actions affecting custodians

technical failures

In many jurisdictions, crypto assets are not protected by deposit insurance or compensation schemes.

Liquidity and market structure fragility

Crypto liquidity is often fragmented:

across multiple exchanges

between spot and derivatives markets

between on-chain and off-chain venues

Consequences include:

sudden price gaps

slippage during stress events

dependence on a small number of liquidity providers

During periods of volatility, liquidity may disappear faster than expected.

Operational and infrastructure dependencies

Crypto markets depend on layered infrastructure:

blockchain networks

node operators

validators or miners

cloud providers

APIs and oracles

Disruptions may result from:

network congestion

software bugs

validator outages

external service failures

These are often non-malicious, but still impactful.

Rehypothecation and opacity risks

Some crypto platforms engage in practices such as:

asset rehypothecation

internal liquidity management

cross-entity fund transfers

When transparency is limited, participants may not fully understand:

how assets are used

where counterparty risk lies

whether liabilities exceed reserves

Opacity amplifies systemic risk.

DeFi-specific considerations

Decentralized finance introduces additional dynamics:

smart contract vulnerabilities

governance risks

oracle manipulation

composability failures

While code-based systems reduce some human discretion, they introduce technical single points of failure.

Audits reduce risk but do not eliminate it.

Conceptual risk pattern in crypto markets

A frequently observed market dynamic:

Market optimism
↓
Rapid capital inflow
↓
Leverage and complexity increase
↓
External shock or regulatory action
↓
Liquidity stress and access limitations

This pattern reflects pro-cyclicality rather than intent or wrongdoing.

Risk management considerations for participants

Participants may reduce exposure by:

understanding custody arrangements

diversifying across platforms and wallets

avoiding excessive leverage

monitoring regulatory developments

prioritizing transparency over yield

Risk cannot be eliminated, only managed.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency markets represent an evolving financial ecosystem shaped by:

regulatory uncertainty

technological dependence

structural complexity

global participation

Key observations:

innovation continues alongside fragility

infrastructure matters as much as assets

transparency and governance remain uneven

Informed participation requires acknowledging these realities.

Legal disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only.
It does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice.
No claims about specific entities, platforms, or individuals are made or implied.

Regulatory Risks and Structural Challenges in the Forex Market

Mamed — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 21:43:37 +0000

How regulatory fragmentation, operational structures, and cross-border frameworks can increase risks for market participants.

Why this article exists

The foreign exchange (Forex) market is one of the most liquid and globally interconnected financial markets.
It involves brokers, technology providers, payment systems, and traders operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Despite its scale, Forex trading carries structural and regulatory risks that are often underestimated by participants.

This article provides a neutral, educational overview of common risk factors associated with Forex trading in cross-border environments.
It does not reference specific individuals, companies, or disputes.

Regulatory fragmentation in global Forex markets

Forex activity frequently spans multiple jurisdictions:

brokerage services in one country

payment infrastructure in another

clients distributed globally

As a result:

regulatory oversight may be incomplete

enforcement standards differ

investor protections vary widely

Regulatory notices are typically preventive tools, not determinations of liability.

Investor protection limitations

Depending on jurisdiction, Forex trading may lack:

deposit guarantee schemes

mandatory compensation mechanisms

standardized dispute resolution

In some frameworks, client funds are not protected in the same way as traditional bank deposits or securities accounts.

This can lead to:

delayed access to funds

complex recovery processes

reliance on legal rather than regulatory remedies

Operational and infrastructure risks

Forex operations rely on interconnected systems:

trading platforms

liquidity providers

payment processors

banking partners

Disruptions at any level may affect client access or execution.

Common non-criminal risk factors include:

compliance-driven service suspensions

banking relationship changes

technical outages

jurisdictional constraints

These are systemic risks, not necessarily misconduct.

Structural changes and jurisdictional complexity

Market participants may reorganize operations by:

changing service providers

relocating infrastructure

adjusting corporate structures

While often legal and commercial, such changes can:

reduce transparency for clients

complicate accountability

delay dispute resolution

From a risk perspective, complexity itself is a factor.

Information asymmetry and trust dynamics

Forex markets rely heavily on trust, yet participants often face:

limited access to operational details

marketing-focused communication

difficulty verifying cross-border arrangements

This asymmetry highlights the importance of:

independent verification

careful review of legal disclosures

conservative risk assumptions

Conceptual risk pattern (educational model)

A commonly discussed pattern in fragmented financial environments:

Regulatory uncertainty
↓
Operational disruption
↓
Restricted access to services
↓
Structural or jurisdictional adjustment
↓
Resumption of activity under revised frameworks

In risk theory, such dynamics may contribute to moral hazard.

Practical risk mitigation considerations

Market participants may reduce exposure by:

verifying regulatory status in all relevant jurisdictions

understanding custody and fund segregation rules

avoiding overconcentration with a single provider

prioritizing legal disclosures over promotional claims

No strategy eliminates risk, but informed participation matters.

Conclusion

Forex trading operates within a complex global ecosystem shaped by:

regulatory diversity

operational interdependence

jurisdictional boundaries

Key takeaways:

oversight is fragmented

protections vary

operational risk is inherent

transparency and due diligence are essential

Understanding these factors is critical for responsible participation in Forex markets.

Legal disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only.
It does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice.
No claims about specific persons, entities, or events are made or implied.