Radar / Other

UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)

Other Estonia uncx.network ↗

Automated profile · 2026-11-06 Sources checked 2026-11-06

Amberoverall

Reviewed 2026-11-06

Our verdict

Be careful

Some important points are unclear or concerning.

  • No financial-service licence or MiCA CASP authorisation was found for UNCX Network or the linked Estonian entity SDD Tech OÜ. The service is presented as non-custodial …
  • uncx.network does not state its operating entity. Third-party sources link the brand to SDD Tech OÜ (Estonia, reg. 16232712), with board members Antoine Chaveron and …
  • On 14 October 2026 the Vesting V2 contracts were exploited through a share-accounting flaw. Blockaid reported about $1.49M lost across Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base and …
!Licensed for what it does?Unclear
○Warnings or fines from regulators?Not checked yet
!Owners known and transparent?Partly
!Customer complaints?Some

What should I do?

  1. Check the licence yourself in the official register of the country where it operates.
  2. Start small – never send more than you can afford to lose.
  3. Keep screenshots of all payments and conversations.

Based on public sources at the date of review. Not a finding that the company acted unlawfully; the company can respond below.

Questions about UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)

Is UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt) licensed?

Estonian FIU / Finantsinspektsioon (home regulator of linked entity): licence claimed but not found in the register. No financial-service licence or MiCA CASP authorisation was found for UNCX Network or the linked Estonian entity SDD Tech OÜ. The service is presented as non-custodial smart-contract tooling, so the regulatory perimeter is unclear.

Who owns UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)?

uncx.network does not state its operating entity. Third-party sources link the brand to SDD Tech OÜ (Estonia, reg. 16232712), with board members Antoine Chaveron and James Deegan.

Is UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt) safe to use?

RatEx42 rates UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt) Amber as of 2026-11-06: some important points are unclear or concerning. The signal is an assessment of public information, not a finding of unlawful conduct and not advice. Always check the licence in the official register yourself.

Are there complaints about UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)?

No Trustpilot or regulator complaint pattern was found. However, projects affected by the Vesting V2 exploit lost tokens held in UNCX's shared contract. Zipcoin announced closure citing the incident and publicly disputed UNCX's handling; UNCX rejected that characterisation.

Answers are generated from this profile (reviewed 2026-11-06). Sources are linked in “The full check” below.

About

UNCX Network, formerly UniCrypt, is a multi-chain DeFi infrastructure provider offering non-custodial liquidity locking, token vesting and staking/farming tools, operating since 2020. Third-party directories link the brand to SDD Tech OÜ, an Estonian company. The Estonian register flags non-submitted annual reports and a deletion notice, and an aggregator lists the company as in liquidation with a liquidator since 2026. No financial-services licence or regulator action was found. On 14 October 2026 its Vesting V2 contracts were exploited; Blockaid reported about $1.49M across four chains, while UNCX's own recap cites about $807K. On 22 October the UNCX Foundation announced a voluntary, KYC/KYB-conditioned ex-gratia recovery programme for certain affected Ethereum projects.

Read more

UNCX Network, formerly UniCrypt, is a multi-chain DeFi infrastructure provider offering non-custodial liquidity locking, token vesting and staking/farming tools, operating since 2020. Third-party directories link the brand to SDD Tech OÜ, an Estonian company. The Estonian register flags non-submitted annual reports and a deletion notice, and an aggregator lists the company as in liquidation with a liquidator since 2026. No financial-services licence or regulator action was found. On 14 October 2026 its Vesting V2 contracts were exploited; Blockaid reported about $1.49M across four chains, while UNCX's own recap cites about $807K. On 22 October the UNCX Foundation announced a voluntary, KYC/KYB-conditioned ex-gratia recovery programme for certain affected Ethereum projects.

The full check

🪪LicenceLicensing & registrationCaution

No financial-service licence or MiCA CASP authorisation was found for UNCX Network or the linked Estonian entity SDD Tech OÜ. The service is presented as non-custodial smart-contract tooling, so the regulatory perimeter is unclear. The Estonian FIU cancelled legacy VASP licence entries on 1 July 2026; secondary sources say Finantsinspektsioon had authorised only one Estonian CASP (Lightspark Payments Europe AS) by then. The Finantsinspektsioon register itself was not queried directly.

👥Who owns itOwnership & controlCaution

uncx.network does not state its operating entity. Third-party sources link the brand to SDD Tech OÜ (Estonia, reg. 16232712), with board members Antoine Chaveron and James Deegan. The register shows non-submitted annual reports (2023 and 2024 periods) and a deletion notice; b2bhint lists the company as in liquidation with Deegan as liquidator since 2026. The X account refers to a separate 'UNCX Foundation', whose legal form and ownership were not found. Group structure is not clearly disclosed.

🏦Where your money goesBanking & payment chainNot checked yet

Not yet assessed.

⚖️Regulator actionsRegulatory actionsNot checked yet

Not yet assessed.

📰News & reputationAdverse media & OSINTCaution

On 14 October 2026 the Vesting V2 contracts were exploited through a share-accounting flaw. Blockaid reported about $1.49M lost across Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base and Robinhood Chain (10 third-party tokens), with copycat wallets joining. UNCX's own 17 October recap cites about $807K extracted and liquidated and about $58K returned via a white-hat and an MEV operator, and says liquidity lockers and legacy vesting were unaffected. UNCX raised fees to limit drains and said it is working with law enforcement and SEAL 911. Media otherwise describe it as a long-running liquidity-locking provider.

💬Customer experienceCustomer conductCaution

No Trustpilot or regulator complaint pattern was found. However, projects affected by the Vesting V2 exploit lost tokens held in UNCX's shared contract. Zipcoin announced closure citing the incident and publicly disputed UNCX's handling; UNCX rejected that characterisation. UNCX's Foundation announced a voluntary ex-gratia programme (stated 100% of liquidated realised proceeds for certain Ethereum projects, subject to KYC/KYB), made without admitting liability. Wider reimbursement status was not confirmed.

How we rate: methodology.

Know someone who uses UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)?Share this check – it takes them 10 seconds.

TelegramLinkedIn

Similar providers

Licences & registrations

Regulator / registerTypeNumberStatus
Estonian FIU / Finantsinspektsioon (home regulator of linked entity)Virtual currency service provider / MiCA CASPClaimed, not found in register

People & network

People (public registers)

  • Antoine Patrick Marie Chaveron · Board member / beneficial owner of SDD Tech OÜ (named UNCX co-founder in a press release) · source
  • James Deegan · Board member; 50% shareholder; liquidator since 2026 per aggregator · source

Version history

  • 2026-11-06 Amber signal Automated re-check: complaints: unknown → amber – affected projects suffered losses; Zipcoin closure and public dispute reported 2026-10-22; UNCX Foundation voluntary ex-gratia programme with KYC/KYB conditions announced
  • 2026-11-06 Amber signal Automated profile created from public sources

Are you UNCX Network (formerly UniCrypt)?

Want to manage this profile – logo, contact details, your statement and a report to share with partners? Claim this profile → Responding below stays free of charge.

You can respond to this profile at any time, free of charge: send a statement for publication or ask us to correct a fact. Please include sources. We review every request and record the outcome.

Signals reflect our assessment of public information at the date of review. They are not a credit rating, not investment advice and not a statement that a company has acted unlawfully. Companies can respond to every profile; published statements and changes are shown on the profile and in the corrections log.