In August 2020, Coins Rate reviewed a group of cryptocurrencies presented as new listings on Altilly, a small digital-asset exchange. The article was published on August 25, 2020. Those listings are historical. In December that year, the exchange reported a hack and loss of data, and subsequent communications concerned claims and recovery rather than the routine trading service described in the original roundup.
What the August roundup actually covered
The list contained a mixture of established coins, newer tokens and projects that had changed technical form. Being new to Altilly did not necessarily mean being a newly launched cryptocurrency. That distinction was already important for projects such as TomoChain and GameCredits, whose histories predated their appearance in the roundup.
The recovered article identified the following assets. The names and tickers below preserve that historical record; they are not a statement that the same asset is currently available under the same identifier.
- Afro (AFRO)
- Politicoin (PBLC)
- KnoxFS (KFX)
- SmartofGiving (AOG)
- Rapids (RPD)
- Rewardiqa (REW)
- GameCredits (GAME)
- Elya (ELYA)
- 42Coin (42)
- TomoChain (TOMO)
- VGTGtoken, identified in the original as VTGT
- CryptoCricketClub (3CS)
Some entries in the original were only placeholders rather than completed reviews. It would be misleading to present those as researched endorsements. Likewise, the old holder counts, coin concentrations and exchange comparisons were snapshots, not durable characteristics that can be carried into a current buying guide.
The different questions behind a listing
A listing tells a reader that an exchange intended to support an asset. It does not establish that the asset's product works, that the team will maintain it or that sufficient buyers will be available. These are separate questions even when a listing attracts attention and creates an initial trading opportunity.
For a project that has rebranded or moved chains, identity becomes another question. KnoxFS was discussed in connection with Aegeus, while the GameCredits entry referred to a move from an independent chain to an Ethereum token. Such events require precise conversion terms. The old coin, new token and exchange balance cannot simply be assumed to represent interchangeable units.
The same applies to supply claims. A low unit count does not by itself make an asset valuable, and a very large token count does not make it unusable. Divisibility, distribution, actual utility and market depth matter more than the number printed beside total supply.
What happened in December 2020
Altilly's contemporaneous announcement thread records the exchange's December incident and its response. On December 28, the account that had opened the exchange's announcement thread said the hackers had deleted backups and stated that assets would be returned to users providing documented proof.
That statement was a recovery promise, not evidence that every customer was repaid. The thread also contains customer complaints and competing explanations of what happened. Those allegations are not treated here as established findings about who caused the incident or whether it was an inside operation.
The later Altilly Files archive presents a reconstruction based on management-chat records and discusses the aftermath. It is a retrospective, participant-associated source, with disclosed gaps in its record. It helps explain why the incident continued to generate questions, but should not be confused with an independent court finding or a complete audited account of customer recoveries.
Why the original trading context no longer applies
The exchange incident changed the meaning of a listing roundup. Before the disruption, the article described potential markets. Afterward, an old account balance could involve a claim against the exchange, while a self-custody coin remained a separate technical asset. The fate of the exchange and the fate of every listed blockchain were not identical.
The present availability of an Altilly trading or recovery service remains unconfirmed. Old deposit addresses, support details and claim instructions should therefore not be interpreted as current routes to trade or recover funds. A claim deadline quoted in a historical forum discussion is also not current legal advice about anyone's rights.
The lasting lesson from the list
The useful historical lesson is the separation of project risk from venue risk. A coin can continue existing after an exchange fails, while an exchange account holder may still lose access to it. A listing offers convenience, but it also introduces custody, recordkeeping and withdrawal dependencies.
Readers investigating individual projects can consult the updated profiles for Afro, KnoxFS, Rapids and 42Coin. The August list remains a record of what was discussed then, with the later exchange incident kept clearly in view.