Blocktrade AMA Call: When marketing takes precedence over education
Criticism of ARC Group’s presence in the Blocktrade environment – questions about responsibility, transparency and communication ethics
A recent online call featuring Mac McDonald, Director of the ARC Group, has caused considerable irritation among former and current Blocktrade customers. The background to this is not a technical detail or an ambiguous formulation – but the fundamental question of how responsibly to deal with people who have been waiting for years for clarification or payment of their investments.
Advertising while outstanding losses remain unresolved
According to consistent accounts from several participants, Mac McDonald discussed possible services and offers from the ARC Group during the call. This took place in front of an audience that consisted largely of people whose funds have been blocked or unresolved for years in connection with Blocktrade.
It is precisely this circumstance that is causing massive criticism:
Instead of first providing transparency about the state of affairs, responsibilities or possible solutions for existing losses, several participants were left with the impression that new offers were being presented or at least promised.
For many of those affected, this seemed like a change of perspective – away from dealing with past obligations and towards new business approaches.
Responsibility towards aggrieved customers
Many of those affected report that they have been waiting for payouts since 2020 or earlier. Against this backdrop, they find it particularly irritating when new offers, programmes or business models are presented in the same environment without first
- clearly stating the status of existing obligations,
- making responsibilities transparent or
- openly addressing why no solution has been found so far.
From a journalistic point of view, this raises less of a legal question than an ethical one:
What responsibility do actors bear when they operate in an environment where thousands of people have suffered financial losses?
Sam Tan regularly points out in calls that the existing losses date from before his takeover and are therefore not his responsibility. Formally, this statement may be true, but in terms of content, it falls short. Those who are at the helm today and promote new perspectives take responsibility for dealing with the legacy issues – at least in terms of communication and organisation. Referring to predecessors is no substitute for transparency towards affected customers.
Communication in the wrong direction
Communication is not a neutral process in such situations. Those who speak set the agenda. Those who promote new perspectives attract attention. And those who evade or postpone questions shift responsibility.
This is precisely why many of those affected rightly expect public appearances to be particularly sensitive, transparent and explanatory towards this target group. Advertising or acquisition – even indirect – is quickly perceived as disrespectful in this context.
Open questions for ARC Group and Blocktrade
Against this background, several unanswered questions are directed at those involved:
- Is there formal or informal cooperation between ARC Group and Blocktrade?
- How do statements from the call relate to existing outstanding customer claims?
- Why are new offers being communicated before old liabilities are discussed?
- What responsibility does ARC Group see itself having towards an audience that consists predominantly of aggrieved investors?
A statement was requested but was not available at the time of publication.
Conclusion: Communication is not a neutral space
This case exemplifies how sensitive communication is in crisis contexts. As long as key questions remain unanswered, promotional appearances do not come across as a new beginning, but rather as a shift in focus – away from responsibility and towards new promises.
Trust is not built through new offers, but through clarification of old obligations.
Note:
This article is a journalistic analysis. It is based on publicly available sources and statements from those affected. It is not a legal assessment or financial advice. Counterstatements will be taken into account.
Sources:
– Blocktrade online call (editorial documentation)
– Communications from call participants and Blocktrade victims
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!