Blocktrade owner in liquidation – the treatment of users is shameful and reminiscent of the fake IPO of myWorld

Comment by Ben Ecker

Blocktrade advertises with the future, but the present looks bleak. With the resolution to dissolve the company on 22 November 2024, this public limited company is in liquidation. This is the start of a series of articles about events that every Blocktrade user should be aware of.

The owner is in liquidation, the IPO is a mirage, and control of the platform lies with a person whom hardly any of the users know: Anja Monika Frauwallner, liquidator of the dissolved Web3 Investco AG. Officially, she is now the only one who can dispose of the Blocktrade shares, not CEO Sam Tan, not a board member, not an alleged ‘team of investors from Estonia’.

Liquidation instead of leadership

An IPO has been announced several times, most recently even with the claim of wanting to list on the NASDAQ. However, the registers of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) contain not a single entry, application, pre-registration for listing or form filing that would concern Blocktrade S.A. or its subsidiaries.

If the IPO were actually in preparation, a Form F-1 or Form S-1 would have to be publicly available by now at the latest. There is – nothing.

In view of outstanding tax liabilities, the lack of IFRS financial statements and a parent company in liquidation, a NASDAQ listing is realistically out of the question. Even a smaller listing – for example, on a European growth segment – would only be possible with audited financial reports, clear ownership structures and a viable governance structure. Blocktrade is a long way from achieving this.

The obvious question is therefore: does it really have to be NASDAQ? Or would it not be more honest to first establish transparency, legal certainty and trust before lulling investors with big promises?

The familiar pattern

The pattern is well known. An IPO is announced, hopes are raised, fresh money is collected, and shortly afterwards comes the withdrawal, dissolution or an abrupt change of ownership.

What already worked for myWorld and Lyconet now seems to be repeating itself under the guise of crypto: big words, little substance and, in the end, a network of PR, marketing and legal opacity.

While Sam Tan publicly talks about ‘growth’ and ‘visions’, the main owner has been in Swiss liquidation proceedings for months.

The question of who actually controls Blocktrade today remains unanswered – despite repeated inquiries. Who is responsible for the operational business also remains unclear. And only a few people know who will ultimately benefit, but it certainly won’t be those who believed the promises.

Blocktrade – formally active, but effectively leaderless

Blocktrade S.A. is formally active, but effectively leaderless. Without a clear ownership structure, audited financial statements and verifiable corporate governance, any statement about a ‘planned IPO’ is pure PR, nothing more. Anyone who still talks about an IPO in this situation is deceiving themselves or others.

A look ahead

In the course of this research, new, previously unpublished information was also found about Mario Oreggia, the former Lyconet President 8.3, who is explicitly named as a person involved in the CSSF prospectus of 11 November 2024.

His role in the transition from myWorld and Lyconet structures to Blocktrade raises new questions, which we will publish in a separate article in the near future. And then there is a dubious change in ownership at Blocktrade in 2024 with sudden company relocations.

Conclusion

A company whose main owner is being liquidated and whose alleged IPO is not registered anywhere is not on the verge of a breakthrough, but rather on the verge of stagnation. As long as Blocktrade does not name clear owners, present audited financial statements and provide regulatory evidence for a listing, the dream of the NASDAQ is nothing more than a marketing fairy tale.

Yours, Ben Ecker

Note: This article is a commentary and reflects the opinion of the editorial team. It contains evaluative assessments within the meaning of Article 5 of the German Basic Law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not a legal or official assessment. Those affected may submit a counterstatement.