Kral also framed the episode as a rapid liquidity stress test driven by demand. He said Zonda typically processes around 100,000 withdrawal requests per year, but saw more than 25,000 requests within hours and days around April 6, which he attributed to negative media coverage.

The On-Chain Detail Traders Can Verify: Last Movement in November 2025

Per Blockchain.com, the disclosed address’s last recorded transaction was in November 2025 as of publication. That timestamp matters because it sets a clean monitoring baseline. If the wallet is truly inaccessible today, continued inactivity would be consistent with that claim.

The flip side is equally important. Any new movement from that address would be an immediate, objective signal that the “inaccessible” status has changed, regardless of what is said in statements. It would not, by itself, resolve the solvency dispute, but it would change the operational picture by showing the cold balance can be mobilized.

Kral also pushed back on claims linking him to Suszek’s disappearance, saying: “So for all those who claim that I had anything to do with Sylwester's disappearance, this is the prime argument that I care the most about Sylwester being found,” referring to the missing founder.

Signals to Monitor Next: Withdrawals, Wallet Flows, and Any Official Probe

The first signal is mechanical: whether withdrawals normalize after the reported surge of 25,000+ requests around April 6, and whether Zonda provides concrete updates on processing times.

Second is on-chain: any transaction from the disclosed 4,503 BTC address, which has not moved since November 2025 per Blockchain.com.

Third is the hot-wallet narrative. Further publications from Recoveris, or similar monitoring, will likely focus on whether hot-wallet balances stabilize or continue to decline, since that was the basis for the insolvency allegation.

Finally, the regulatory overhang remains unresolved. The story references local claims of a Polish authorities probe, but no official statement or filing details are provided. Any confirmed communication from authorities would shift this from market rumor to a defined legal process.

A Public Address Helps Verification, but ‘Inaccessible Keys’ Is a New Risk Variable

I like having a concrete address because it forces the debate onto verifiable ground. Before this, the market was stuck arguing from hot-wallet inferences and withdrawal anecdotes. Now there is at least one reserve-sized balance that can be monitored in real time.

The threshold that matters is accessibility, not headline reserves. If a 4,503 BTC cold wallet is real but cannot be signed, it does not function as liquidity during a withdrawal wave. If that status changes and the wallet begins to move, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, because it would demonstrate the exchange can mobilize deep reserves to meet obligations.

Sources

• Cointelegraph