With lawyers instead of arguments: How Apertum is trying to silence criticism.

A comment from CEO Ben Ecker on the warning letter against our DAO1 investigation:

“The Berlin law firm Irlemoser has issued a warning letter against our editorial team on behalf of Apertum Holding Ltd. They are demanding that we delete our article “DAO1 and Apertum: Crypto promises with deception?” and that we sign a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause, which is a serious infringement of press freedom that we reject in the strongest possible terms.

The core of the accusation is that our article allegedly contains ‘demonstrably false’ and ‘business-damaging’ factual claims. The law firm’s arguments remain vague in many respects, are in some cases even contradictory, and above all ignore the fundamental principles of journalistic due diligence.

Our research is based on publicly available sources, including statements from regulatory authorities such as the Texas State Securities Board, which has issued a binding cease-and-desist order against DAO1. Even though Apertum disputes this order, as mentioned in the article, it remains a verifiable fact that must be included in balanced reporting.

The law firm’s portrayal of the US authority’s alleged ‘purely personal motivation’ appears to be a transparent diversionary tactic. We will examine this serious allegation separately and seek a statement from the Texas financial regulator.

We have documented the lack of transparency in the company’s structure, such as the inability to locate Apertum Holding Ltd. at the address provided in Madeira. This research can be reproduced at any time. The lawyers, on the other hand, now claim that the company is ‘not registered in Madeira’ and has ‘never claimed to be’. The law firm seems to have overlooked the fact that such a discrepancy in itself must give rise to critical questions.

The reference to possible pyramid scheme elements is not based on arbitrary polemics, but on structural indications, such as the question of the extent to which revenues come primarily from product sales or from new memberships. It is precisely this question that is at the heart of regulatory assessments worldwide and is also regularly classified as a risk factor by financial supervisory authorities.

We therefore regard the demand for the article to be deleted as an inadmissible attempt to delegitimise journalistic work by legal means rather than through substantive debate. In times of increasing crypto and financial speculation, which often operate in a grey area, critical reporting is not a luxury but a duty.

We firmly reject the requested cease-and-desist declaration. Should legal proceedings be initiated, we will substantiate the accuracy of our statements with extensive supporting documentation. Attempts to intimidate us with legal threats will not deter us from looking where others prefer to look away.

After all, providing information is not a violation; it is a prerequisite for an informed public.

B. Ecker CEO”