Is This $7B Crypto Company Lying About Its Numbers Just After Going Public?

• From Fintech Darling to Nasdaq Star
• The On-Chain Transparency Paradox
• Smoke, Mirrors, or Just Bad Optics?
• Why This Matters Beyond FIGR’s Stock Price
• Q&A: Decoding the Figure Controversy

Figure, a crypto-finance hybrid, made waves with its Nasdaq debut under the ticker FIGR, boasting a $7B valuation and claims of $6B in facilitated mortgage loans. But blockchain sleuths are raising eyebrows—does the data match the hype?

From Fintech Darling to Nasdaq Star

Figure isn’t your average crypto startup. Founded by ex-SoFi CEO Mike Cagney, it bridges traditional finance, real estate loans, and blockchain via its Provenance network. The company’s IPO was a stunner: shares opened at $36 (44% above IPO price), raising $787.5M. They claim 30% YoY growth in mortgage originations, with 10 of America’s top 20 lenders using their tech. But here’s where things get spicy—while Figure touts $12B in on-chain RWA (Real World Assets), investigators found barely $9M in visible crypto liquidity.

The On-Chain Transparency Paradox

Cagney publicly challenged data tracker DefiLlama for excluding Figure’s metrics, arguing their institutional-heavy transactions deserve recognition. DefiLlama’s lead dev 0xngmi fired back: "Their stablecoin supply is $20M, BTC/ETH volumes are microscopic, and most ‘on-chain’ loans appear to be bookkeeping entries." A Telegram chat between the teams revealed Figure had dodged technical questions about these discrepancies for months.

Smoke, Mirrors, or Just Bad Optics?

Digging into Provenance’s blockchain explorer shows suspiciously empty blocks. Meanwhile, the $17B in "active loans" advertised on Figure’s website? Nowhere to be found on-chain. Industry analysts at BTCC note: "Tokenized RWAs are revolutionary, but transparency can’t be selective—especially post-IPO."

Why This Matters Beyond FIGR’s Stock Price

The credibility of blockchain-based finance hangs in the balance. If major players can’t deliver verifiable on-chain activity, regulators may clamp down harder. As one trader quipped on X: "When your ‘public ledger’ needs a private explanation, something’s fishy."

This article does not constitute investment advice. Data sourced from CoinMarketCap, TradingView, and DefiLlama.

Q&A: Decoding the Figure Controversy

What’s the core allegation against Figure?

Analysts claim Figure vastly overstated its on-chain activity, with less than 0.1% of claimed RWA volumes visible via blockchain explorers.

How has Figure responded?

Cagney insists their institutional transactions operate differently from retail DeFi, but hasn’t explained the missing on-chain footprints.

Could this affect other RWA projects?

Absolutely. The sector relies on trust in blockchain transparency—any cracks in that foundation could slow institutional adoption.