In a recent reveal, sources have confirmed that several former CIFDAQ staff have gone months without compensation.
Data obtained by this publication and verified independently, identifies a list of former employees, all of whom are owed salaries averaging between two and three months.
Eight of those employees being owed amounts in rupees have been specified (totaling ₹14,66,069), which, at a conservative exchange rate of ₹1 ≈ $0.012, amounts to about $17,592.83, amongst others.
Contractually-listed amounts include Rahul Singh (₹2,03,000; ≈$2,436), Amit Das (₹1,66,000; ≈$1,992), Aneez Ahmed (₹2,62,500; ≈$3,150), Praveen Kumar (₹1,61,000; ≈$1,932), Swetha Machunuru (₹2,90,468; ≈$3,485.62) Shyama PM (₹66,435; ≈$797.22), Vineet Rawat (₹1,66,666; ≈$1,999.99), and Ezan Abdula (₹1,50,000; ≈$1,800).
Furthermore, the timeframes themselves reflected a consistent pattern: within the named individuals where time data were available, the average period owed is ~2.46 months (range: 2.0-3.0 mos).
An employee affected by the incident has used the courts to settle their unpaid wages, a spokesperson familiar with the situation noted.
Although sources reveal that there may be a great many other former employees owed, in total, much more than noted.
Legal Filing by Former Employee
The crisis involving CIFDAQ has escalated to the point of legal action, as indicated by a legal notice filed on behalf of Rahul Singh, a former employee, on 30 January 2024 against Sigmond Morgan IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (the organization linked with CIFDAQ) for unpaid wages and wrongful termination.
According to the filing, Singh started employment in June 2023, receiving a salary of ₹76,631 (approx. $919 USD), and was employed upuntil the end of 2023 when he quit.
The filing states that Singh did not receive pay for November, December, and January, leaving ₹2,03,366 (approx. $2,440 USD) owed to Singh.
Furthermore, the notice seeks ₹20,00,000 (approx. $24,000 USD) in damages related to emotional distress, economic damages, and lost reputation.
The notice additionally states that Singh was threatened by CIFDAQ and was terminated on 22 January 2024, after asking for pay.
This case transitions this dispute from a case based on social media accusations into the formal legal dimensions of a case, significantly raising the stakes.
Leadership Exits and a Public Disassociation
CIFDAQ’s issues are also evident at the top. Jay Hao, the former CEO of OKX, publicly distances himself from CIFDAQ, saying that he has no financial, operational, or legal relationship whatsoever with the company, nor did he consent to offer CIFDAQ his name or likeness in relation to their activities.
According to another post on Linkedin, Sanjay Saxena, also of Paytm, has likewise stepped down from a role related to CIFDAQ’s work.
The timing of these exits has only increased speculation in the ecosystem. Why Jay Hao left, however, is still unclear.
Sources close to the situation indicate that his departure might be personal, but they stressed that anything else is speculative at this point.
What is not in dispute, however, is the signaling effect: senior executives are distancing themselves from a company with an emerging employee grievance, throwing additional questions into play about the future direction of the firm.
Sponsorships and visibility spend amid dues
While ex-employees described months of unpaid salaries, the CIFDAQ naming and brand expansion remained continual.
Posts on social media that this outlet reviewed characterized active sponsorship of events and sports, including recent Instagram posts and reels that included the CIFDAQ logo and branding.
This stark contrast between marketing budget surplus versus payroll arrears has become a touch point in discussions with informants about CIFDAQ activity: several described self-promotion decisions as a mismatch between public and personnel priorities.
Without line-item budgets or an official detailed account of how money has been spent, it was impossible to quantify or even presume how much sponsorship consumed.
However, the appearance of high-profile sponsorships juxtaposed with the lingering, reported payroll has amplified criticism and contributed to the loss of trust among present and former employees.
Also Read: Bitcoin Mining Firm Mawson Fires CEO Amid Serious Fraud and Fiduciary Breach Allegations
Compliance posture and the regulatory context
The operating climate for crypto platforms in India has become more stringent, more specifically concerning FIU-India registration and anti-money laundering compliance.
Sources indicate that CIFDAQ currently does not possess FIU-India registration, and if unsolved, it may hinder customer acquisition, partnerships, and many aspects of credibility from a long-term operating perspective.
This is not the first public incident the company has dealt with. Earlier coverage from The Economic Times had its fingers on a wave of employee complaints, as well as failure to pay employees at a blockchain company associated with former Paytm leaders (ET report).
It all compounds with existing spreadsheet evidence, leadership exits, and sponsorship activity, and the regulatory question looms larger: without warm signals of compliance, it is going to be difficult to regain trust from stakeholders.
Also Read: Philippines SEC Set to Bring In New Rules To Regulate Crypto-Asset Service Providers
Employee experiences and retaliation claims
Reports from individuals associated with the company and hired to connect to similar organizations reflect a fearful atmosphere.
Those who expressed concerns or criticism, either privately or in social media spaces, suggest allegations during their firings were dubious at best, which has made others hesitant to speak about their experiences unless they are strictly anonymous.
Many were made to sign waivers relieving the organization of appearing liable.
The public conversation erupted again last week when a former employee posted on LinkedIn what that contributor suggested were “workplace realities” of the blockchain startup ecosystem. The same post referenced the crisis of non-payment.
Contributors reported continued employee efforts to settle salaries that are due, collect documentation of unpaid salaries, and, where applicable, determine if litigation is an option.
Additionally, several employees reported the effect on personal lives, such as months without income, difficulty finding a new job in the atmosphere of the blockchain industry, and the “mental gymnastics” of going public versus potential retaliation.
Also Read: CIFDAQ Taps Former OKX CEO Jay Hao as Co-Founder & Global COO Amid Expansion Plans
What remains unknown, and what to watch
There are still significant uncertainties. How many former and current employees have not been compensated, beyond the 13 on the worksheet?
Will any of those owed payments be made? What is the current company’s compliance process or timeline for FIU-India registration?
The timing of when senior leaders exiting from the firm is unclear; sources have indicated Jay Hao’s departure may have been personal, but the subsequent changes to the company’s leadership pose wider questions about governance and stability.
Meanwhile, marketing visibility moves forward. If sponsorships continue while there is outstanding compensation owed, the image issue will likely solidify as a reputational issue.
Observers in the crypto and venture sectors will be looking for concrete evidence, including timelines for payment, remediation for employees owed money, compliance updates, and clearer communication about the firm’s leadership and future direction.
Also Read: CIFDAQ Aims to Onboard 20M Users & Grow Trading Volume To $50-$100M In 2025 – Founder