From Safir/ZENIQ to XPRO to Connect: The Shell Game Enters the Next Round
After Safir/ZENIQ, WEWE Global, The Blockchain Era, XERA, XPRO, and a long list of failed or rebranded token projects, Connect has presented itself in recent months as a fresh start. New terminology, new interfaces, new promises. However, a closer examination of communication patterns, leadership structures, and feedback from users reveals a different picture: Connect appears less as a genuine new beginning and more as a continuation of an established model in which responsibility is systematically pushed downward, while control and decision-making authority remain firmly at the top.
From Products to “Purpose”: The Shift in Narrative
What is currently unfolding around Connect follows a pattern that long-time participants in this ecosystem know all too well. Recent official communications from Connect increasingly move away from concrete product descriptions or measurable performance indicators. Instead, abstract motivational messaging now dominates. Posts in official channels read more like coaching prompts than serious corporate updates.
This form of communication serves a clear function: dissatisfaction is no longer framed as the result of failed products, lost value, or broken promises, but is reinterpreted as an individual lack of clarity or commitment. Structural problems are internalized, and responsibility is subtly shifted from the system onto the individual.
Such narratives are typical of the transition phase in MLM-driven crypto systems. Before new products are introduced or existing ones restructured, communication shifts away from performance and toward purpose.
The License as an Entry Ticket: Pay to Participate?
Without an active license, users have no access to the referral program, no ability to earn rewards or bonuses, and therefore no meaningful economic benefit from the platform. The license is not positioned as an optional add-on, but as a mandatory prerequisite for participating in the system at all.
As a result, the economic value of Connect is not tied to product utility or market success, but to an upfront access fee. This model is well known from classic MLM structures: value creation does not center on the product itself, but on the right to recruit others.
Instead of a transparent reckoning with past losses, communication is dominated by new calls to activate, renew licenses, and “act now.” Previous projects, rule changes, and value losses are rarely explained in a systematic way; instead, they are communicatively glossed over. The introduction of a mandatory license appears less like a service upgrade and more like the monetization of hope.
User Accounts: Loyalty Without Return
Behind the language of clarity, growth, and “now is the time,” many long-standing users experience a very different reality. One user who has invested in Connect and its predecessor projects for more than three years describes a cycle of constant name changes, disappearing and reappearing leadership figures, and repeated rule changes. Despite multiple so-called recovery measures, his capital remains locked in and has lost a significant portion of its value.
Particularly telling is that even the announced token availability is no longer perceived as a solution, but as a moment of risk. Concerns that further adjustments could once again cause the value to collapse upon market entry outweigh any hope of recovery. When trust is absent even at key milestones, this is not a communication issue—it is a structural one.
Some investors no longer dare to promote the project within their personal networks, out of fear of drawing others into the same financial distress. They see themselves as victims of a leadership class that retreats into “vague silence” while simultaneously urging the community to inject ever more money.
Our Conclusion: The USD 99 Barrier as a Calculated Move at the Expense of Users
There is growing suspicion that the USD 99 license represents a maneuver with potentially fraudulent intent. Implicitly, it functions as a convenient liability shield, guarantees immediate liquidity, and skillfully exploits psychological mechanisms:
By purchasing a “license,” the investment is legally reframed as a “service,” making refunds and claims significantly more difficult. With several hundred or even thousands of active users, this “membership fee” can generate a substantial amount of fresh capital in U.S. dollars almost instantly—without the need to deliver any corresponding technological value.
Anyone who pays the USD 99 signals to the system a continued willingness to follow the principle of the sunk cost fallacy: those already harmed invest even more despite negative past experiences, in an attempt to avoid writing off their losses. Slogans such as “The time is now” and “Don’t miss out” artificially create time pressure. It is a classic tactic designed to replace critical thinking with fear of missing out.
Note:
This article is a journalistic analysis. It is based on publicly available sources. It is not a legal assessment or financial advice. All assessments have been researched to the best of our knowledge and are marked as opinions within the meaning of Art. 10 ECHR / Art. 5 GG. Counterstatements will be taken into account in accordance with § 56 RStV.
Sources
- Connect Telegram Group
- Own Verification (Editorial Team)
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!