RE: INVESTOR CALL1 Apr 2026 18:06
@Takecare — I’m going to call this out because it’s an unfair and inaccurate analogy.
I had family and friends who were genuinely harmed by the OneCoin Ponzi scheme. That operation was nothing like VLRM. OneCoin wasn’t publicly listed, had zero transparency, no verifiable asset structure, and you couldn’t sell or exit your position — everything was controlled by the founders behind closed doors. It was a classic Ponzi, and a dark one.
VLRM is fundamentally different. No one is being forced to invest, there are no tiers, uplines, or recruitment incentives, and there’s full visibility of the company’s structure and regulatory commitments. Investors can buy and sell shares at a loss or a gain — which was absolutely impossible with OneCoin.
You said “facts and logic have been rejected” — but yesterday’s RNS literally sets out an enforceable commitment. To quote:
“QGP has agreed to pledge all ordinary shares and warrants… to the Company until payment of the VGOLD-CORE tokens and a Definitive Agreement being concluded. If the Definitive Agreement is not executed or the coupon is not delivered, all pledged shares and warrants shall be released to the Company, and the coupon shall be deemed satisfied in full.”
In simple terms:
If they don’t deliver, every pledged share and warrant comes back to VLRM.
That’s the opposite of a Ponzi. It’s a safeguard.
OneCoin never offered anything remotely like that. There were no protections, no transparency, no listed equity, and certainly no mechanism where “if we fail, you get everything back.”
So comparing VLRM to OneCoin isn’t just inaccurate — it’s misleading.
There’s no mass recruitment, no “events” promising unrealistic returns, no multi‑level structure, and no retail pumping scheme.
They’re not even in the same universe.