Copper.One: Lots of marketing, little evidence!

In times of economic uncertainty and fears of inflation, many investors are looking for so-called ‘safe havens’. Copper, a globally sought-after raw material with industrial relevance, seems predestined for this role. This is exactly where the Copper.One project comes in – with a promise that is raising increasingly critical questions: copper is to be tokenised via a blockchain and thus made digitally tradable. But behind the glossy façade, doubts are stirring: how reliable is an investment in which the raw material itself is hardly tangible?

Promises without reliable evidence?

The concept sounds modern: investors buy tokens that are supposed to be backed by physically existing copper. This form of tokenisation is intended to democratise copper investments and open up new markets. However, despite extensive announcements, one crucial detail is still missing: concrete evidence of the storage, valuation and ownership of the copper.

To date, there are no publicly available audit reports or clear information on storage locations or the legal structure of the deposit. Representatives of Copper.One have so far responded evasively even to specific enquiries. In a market that thrives on trust, this is a serious shortcoming.

Old names, new platform

The people behind the project are also causing additional scepticism: several players were previously involved in projects such as ZENIQ, AVINOC and GSPartners. These platforms launched with ambitious blockchain visions, but later came under criticism, partly due to a lack of transparency, regulatory conflicts and sharp price losses.

For example, Swen Völkl-Schild, who according to event materials is jointly responsible for Copper.One, is named as a former player at ZENIQ and AVINOC. There, too, the focus was on raw material procurement and tokenisation; however, investors suffered considerable losses in value. Although a direct comparison remains speculative, the parallels are striking.

Structure with distribution risks?

Copper.One’s business model also raises questions. It uses a referral and distribution model similar to classic multi-level marketing (MLM) structures. The economic incentive seems to lie less in actual copper trading than in attracting new investors. Such mechanisms have already led to allegations in similar projects in the past that systems with Ponzi-like risks could arise.

For example, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) regularly warns against token offerings that have no clear link to a regulated commodity market. A token alone does not represent a tangible asset – private investors in particular should be aware of this.

Marketing is no substitute for substance

So far, Copper.One has mainly focused on media presence: launch events with prominent industry figures, elaborately produced videos and intensive social media campaigns. However, what is still missing are the essential foundations for a sound investment decision: a detailed and audited white paper, an auditor’s report, verifiable evidence of physically existing copper – in short, everything that distinguishes a substance-based investment from a purely marketing-driven product.

Conclusion: Copper as a backdrop?

Copper.One is exploiting the high reputation of copper as a raw material to promote a system that is currently not transparent or verifiable in key respects. Investors are given the impression of a secure investment – but it remains unclear whether and to what extent real assets underlie this system. Anyone investing here should be aware that The focus is not on the raw material, but primarily on the expectations of a system whose foundations have yet to be disclosed.

Note: As always, those affected are welcome to comment, or if anyone has more or different information, they are welcome to share it with us. We are not interested in making false claims and our primary goal remains to provide complete documentation.

This article is intended solely for information, journalistic analysis and independent opinion-forming within the meaning of Article 5 of the German Basic Law and Section 51 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) (right to quote). All information is based on publicly available sources, official communications and careful editorial research. Despite the utmost care, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information contained herein.

Companies, persons or projects are named on the basis of verifiable research and clearly identified expressions of opinion. Publication is protected by the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. Contributing sources are subject to editorial source protection in accordance with journalistic standards.

Further sources and references:

1. FINMA warning list & tokenisation:
2. → https://www.finma.ch/de/aufsicht/fintech/tokenisierung/
3. → It regularly warns against unregulated token projects.
4. ZENIQ & AVINOC Analysis (blog or watchdog platforms):
5. → www.blockchain-wiki.de
6. → Contains numerous articles on previous projects involving relevant persons.
7. Copper.One project page (for comparison):
8. → https://copper.one
9. → Official statements and event videos for critical comparison.
10. Studies on the legal situation of tokenised commodities:
11. → e.g. Fraunhofer Institute: ‘Tokenisation of physical assets – opportunities and risks’