r/BlockDAGInvestors

I'm a long term Investor, purchased(not received) 3 miners, convinced we've been scammed, and written off my investment.

But if it's all doom and gloom, there is a small part (5 %) that wonders if the new board of management, a new (Vs old coin) , and subtle announcements on miners, is an indication that despite all the ongoing scam, there might actually be some work behind the scenes to make the project legit, and actually based on Blockchain?

Don't get me wrong. I still believe it's a scam, but that there may be some investment towards legit over the next two years. Thoughts?

Community members are strongly advised not to provide any further money, tokens, liquidity, labor, infrastructure, or promotional support to BlockDAG—or to any DAO, fork, or related venture involving Jeremy Harkness, Nic van den Burgh, or administrators associated with Free Land.
The community has already suffered enough. It should not now be expected to finance another initiative connected to individuals whose prior conduct, private statements, and timing raise serious questions about their motives and credibility.

A private leaked message attributed to Nic van den Burgh after the fork states:
“I am only interested in income for myself and or revenue, and extracting the value that I have in the BDAG business.”

That is not the language of someone primarily concerned with protecting the community or helping victims recover. It expressly communicates a personal financial interest and an intention to extract value from the BlockDAG business.

Nic’s earlier conduct must also be remembered. He concealed or misrepresented GK’s involvement while attempting to silence those raising legitimate warnings. When challenged to provide proof of liquidity to support their promises of a healthy launch, he failed to do so.

Nic’s prior conduct demonstrates that he was complicit in protecting the interests behind BlockDAG rather than its victims. Jeremy Harkness’s conduct raises equally serious concerns.

Jeremy reportedly forked the BlockDAG network in February, around the same period as the planned launch. Despite taking that step, he waited months before publicly speaking out. His public position appeared to change only after he and Nic were no longer being paid.

That timeline deserves close attention. If Jeremy believed the network needed to be forked in February, what did he know at that time? Why did he not disclose those concerns immediately? Why did he not demand that the launch and exchange listings be paused? Why did his public warnings emerge only after the financial relationship had ended?
Leaked messages attributed to Jeremy reportedly show him privately acknowledging that the BlockDAG launch was destined to fail. Yet despite apparently understanding the danger—and reportedly forking the network around the time of launch—he did nothing meaningful to stop it or protect the wider community.

While Jeremy remained silent, Reid and I raised the warnings publicly and took the full beatdown. We endured attacks, threats, ridicule, reputational damage, and repeated efforts to silence us while others possessing relevant information failed to act.

Jeremy Harkness is now promoting a DAO that he says will be funded by the community and will provide direct financial support to selected contributors.

This raises an unavoidable concern: is the same community that suffered the losses now being asked to finance salaries, grants, expenses, or other compensation for Jeremy, Nic van den Burgh, Free Land administrators, or their associates?

Free Land’s administrators must not be permitted to rewrite their role in this history. They attempted to silence or discredit people who warned the community about BlockDAG. They also worked to undermine legal efforts seeking accountability while claiming that they were protecting their investments. Their financial interests appeared to take priority over transparency, accountability, and potential recovery for the broader community.

Calling the new structure a “DAO” does not erase what happened. Promises of community governance do not excuse past concealment, silence, or interference with accountability efforts. Describing payment recipients as “contributors” does not change the fact that community funds may benefit individuals connected to this history.

My position is unequivocal: BlockDAG should not receive another dollar. Neither should any repackaged DAO, fork, recovery project, or associated venture promoted, supported, or controlled by these individuals.

Do not fund it.
Do not provide liquidity.
Do not donate tokens, labor, infrastructure, or promotional support.
Do not allow the same community that suffered the losses to be used as a source of financing again.

Remember who raised the warnings. Remember who attempted to silence them. Remember who apparently knew the danger but failed to act—and examine when they finally decided to speak.
Follow the timeline. Stop giving to people connected to this disaster.

A lot of people are trying to delete their comments made from a year ago in 2 years ago when everyone was trying to call it a scam not too late soon it's going to make everyone who said that look like a bunch of fools

As one of early invester that invest into BDAG from those first days with years of saving. Today, I have to accept my loss after 2 years playing with these clowns, tge money is gone and my mental is broken , cant lets these clowns take more of my mental health. I hope these scamer will go to jail any moment soon.

Hope everyone took screenshots of their purchases previously made, it seems with this new dashboard and “new BDAG” there’s no proof of purchase on the dashboard.

I think one of the biggest problems in the BlockDAG discussion is that people keep trying to force it into one of two boxes:

Either it’s a scam, or it’s a legitimate project.

Reality may be more complicated.

There are plenty of reasons why people currently believe BlockDAG is a scam. You don’t have to invent conspiracy theories to get there. The publicly known facts already explain the distrust.

The presale ran for an unusually long time and was accompanied by increasingly aggressive marketing, bonus offers, mining hardware, sponsorships and repeated claims about how much money had supposedly been raised.

Then questions started appearing about those numbers.

At one point BlockDAG publicly promoted fundraising figures of roughly $442 million, while people associated with the project reportedly gave substantially lower figures elsewhere.

That alone does not prove fraud.

But when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved, investors are justified in asking a very simple question:

How much money was actually received?

And where did it go?

Then there were the miners.

Customers had paid for mining hardware, while reports later emerged about delayed or missing deliveries and outstanding obligations.

Again: bad logistics are not automatically fraud.

But add that to everything else and the picture becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.

Then there is the leadership issue.

For much of the presale, investors did not appear to have a clear picture of who was actually behind BlockDAG and who ultimately controlled it.

Gürhan Kızılöz's role only became clear much later.

Whatever explanation one accepts for that, it raises another legitimate question:

Did presale buyers know who they were actually investing with?

Then came perhaps the biggest problem of all:

The economic rules changed.

The original BDAG became Legacy BDAG.

A new New BDAG was introduced.

The new token is supposed to take over core network functions such as gas, mining rewards and other utility.

Legacy BDAG, meanwhile, continues to exist.

Technically, that allows BlockDAG to say that the original tokens were not simply deleted.

Economically, however, that doesn't answer the important question:

What is the value of a token if the utility investors originally expected increasingly moves to another token?

And now there is another allocation process, reinstatement rules, a buyback programme, another token supply model and effectively another presale structure.

If someone looks at this sequence and says:

“This looks like a scam to me.”

I can understand why.

There are enough red flags.

But there is another uncomfortable possibility that tends to get lost in the discussion:

BlockDAG could actually be real.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive in the way many people assume.

A project can have:

- terrible management,

- misleading marketing,

- questionable decisions,

- opaque finances,

- broken promises,

- badly treated early investors,

- repeated changes to tokenomics,

…and still ultimately build a functioning blockchain.

Crypto history has already produced examples of projects that looked close to collapse during their early years.

Tezos had a huge ICO, internal power struggles, lawsuits and major delays.

The network eventually launched and still exists.

Filecoin raised money years before its mainnet went live.

EOS raised billions, ran into regulatory trouble and was later fundamentally restructured.

None of these cases prove anything about BlockDAG.

They only prove one thing:

A chaotic history does not mathematically prevent a blockchain from eventually becoming real.

And this is where I think the BlockDAG debate needs more nuance.

If BlockDAG launches a functioning network with miners, validators, smart contracts, applications, transactions and real users, that would prove that the technology exists.

It would not automatically prove that the presale was fair.

It would not explain every fundraising discrepancy.

It would not make undelivered products disappear.

It would not retroactively justify every marketing claim.

And it certainly would not automatically make the original presale a good investment.

The opposite is also true.

If early investors were economically devastated by the restructuring, that does not automatically mean the network itself cannot succeed later.

Both can be true at the same time:

«The original presale may have been deeply problematic.»

and

«The resulting blockchain may still become a real, functioning network.»

That may actually be one of the more plausible scenarios.

BlockDAG doesn't need more promises now.

It needs things that can independently be verified:

- the actual maximum New BDAG supply,

- transparent token allocations,

- verifiable wallets,

- real launch liquidity,

- reproducible reinstatement calculations,

- functioning mining,

- real network activity,

- actual developers and applications,

- and clear corporate responsibility.

If those things appear, the argument that “nothing exists” becomes harder to maintain.

But even then, the history of the presale doesn't simply disappear.

That is why I don't think the useful question anymore is:

“Is BlockDAG a scam: yes or no?”

The better questions are:

Was the presale transparent?

Were early investors treated fairly?

Does the blockchain actually work?

And can the network create real demand?

Those four questions can have four completely different answers.

And that may ultimately be the most important thing to understand about BlockDAG:

A real blockchain does not automatically mean a fair presale.

But a disastrous presale does not automatically mean that no real blockchain can ever emerge from it either.

It’s a scam but if you’re convinced it’s a good investment then wait 2 years and you’ll be able to buy it for $0.00000003

I mean, why some exchanges still allow BDag trading? After 2 years presale. For sure easily labelled as scam yet why some exchnages still allow bday to trade?

What if Bdag bowed down being pressured by Bdag investors to halt at around $445m demands enough enough and not being impatient that pushed Bdag to launch unfinished not met $600m

Remember Bdag team have repeatedly said $600m is the goal. Alwsys have been. Remember in early 1st-2nd year. They have told us $600m is the goal.

Maybe that is why Bdag presale and after sale still goes on because $600m hasn't been met?

If the price fell down way below, is it the bdag investors' fault for being impatient, pushing and demanding early launch? Lack of transparency? Why DUNN still running and exchange Bdag for Phoenix?

Does that mean they (Phoenix and Bdag Investors team) knew its legitimate project?

Were the investors being called the noises that affect Bdag greatly and quickly targeted GK?

I'm not mad, I'm over with that long time ago but hasn't stopped me cheking Bdag project from time to time. Sometime wonder how the fk did it become so messy ? Was it both parties bday team and bdag investors team at fault for headbutting each other?

https://preview.redd.it/r24xcg4egcjh1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd7067b9f178b47390bb2b429c97b44a82c7b8e4

Bdag network acaba de reiniciar tudo, novo painel com novo preço de pré-venda e novo lançamento, fraude total !!!

I think BDAG allways been in blackout! Fckin Thieves!

Has anyone recently been able to withdraw from Coinstore? I have withdrawn to metamask in the past but it seems they have stopped accepting withdrawals for some reason. I don’t want to hear “it’s a scam” or anything, I just want to move the BDAG to another wallet

If I commit suicide, know that they are the reason I lost everything and all I owned because of lies.