and this is one of them.
I have thought deeply about how to speak to you, what to say, and how to say it. Because I understand that what we are going through is not just about money.
It is about dreams, plans, families, and decisions that were made with hope, with trust, and with belief in what was presented to us.
That is why I am here: to speak with clarity, respect, and responsibility.
Throughout this entire period, and up until the very last moment, like many of you, I also believed deeply in this project. I believed in the vision, in the people, and in the information that was shared with us. From that place, decisions were made.
My family invested. My children invested. My friends and people close to me trusted—not only in the project, but in me. And that is something I feel very deeply.
Over the past months, we have been going through something very difficult:
I understand that this silence created uncertainty, fear, and in many cases, pain. I understand that it may have been perceived as distance, concealment, or even responsibility.
But I want to be clear. Given the circumstances, it was a decision that we considered prudent at the time, just as we were willing to step aside if that would help the company regain stability and be able to respond. It was never indifference.
However, I do understand the impact it had. And if it caused pain or mistrust… I acknowledge it, and I am truly sorry.
I know that many people have continued to hold on to hope. The hope that the company will respond. The hope that payments will come through. The hope that everything will somehow be resolved.
And I want to be very careful with this. Because hope is something delicate, something that must be handled responsibly: it should not be broken abruptly, but neither should it be sustained by something that lacks a clear foundation.
Today, with the responsibility I feel toward all of you, I need to say something firmly: As of today, I do not have verifiable evidence indicating that the company currently has the real operational, financial, or structural capacity to fulfill everything it has promised.
What is currently being presented as a "solution" does not, from my perspective, constitute a real mechanism for recovering the funds. Based on the information available and on my analysis, it appears to be a model that depends heavily on new incoming funds and external conditions in order to sustain itself. And this is something I cannot endorse or recommend.
This does not necessarily mean that everything is definitively lost. What it does mean is that we cannot continue making decisions based solely on unsupported promises or unverified information. Everyone deserves clarity.
I know this is not what we wanted to hear. And I know that many people have been searching for answers or even for a solution. I also know that many people today feel confused, upset, hurt, abandoned, or even betrayed.
And all of those emotions are valid. They truly are.
It is understandable that, in moments like this, doubts, suspicions, and even accusations may arise. But it is also important that any conclusion be based on verifiable facts, not only on versions, assumptions, or perceptions.
From the very beginning, and up until the very last moment, I believed deeply in this project. Even though we did not make an immediate public statement, we never walked away. We have been here, listening, responding, and supporting those who reached out to us directly.
My intention has always been to create value: to share knowledge, open doors, and create opportunities for others. Every decision we made was based on the information available to us at that time.
We never had access to verifiable, prior knowledge indicating that something like this was going to happen. Had we had it, we would have communicated differently and acted accordingly.
At a certain point, situations began to arise that did not align with what had been presented to us: unresolved technical issues, delays in payments, inconsistencies in the information, and decisions that raised more questions than answers.
In response, we began taking direct and documented actions: we raised questions, we requested clarity, we proposed solutions, and we even suggested pausing operations to prevent more people from continuing to invest. However, those decisions were not under our control.
As the days went by, communication within the leadership began to break down. A formal internal communication was issued in which our participation in the project, particularly mine, was questioned, and we continued to request communication, clarity, and openness without receiving answers or solutions.
With each passing day, the situation became more difficult, and communication with the company became increasingly limited… until it disappeared.
At no point did either Eloy or I have access to or control over investor funds. We did not have control over financial operations, payment systems, or the management of funds.
Our role was always focused on building, communication, and growth—trusting, just like all of you.
Throughout this entire process, we along with our families and people close to us, continued to invest up until the very last moment. Because we believed.
If at any point we had had clear evidence of a real risk or of improper handling, we would have communicated it and acted accordingly. Because the sense of responsibility we feel toward this community is the same responsibility we feel toward our own families.
Throughout this process, I have witnessed the work, commitment, and dedication of many people within this community. And especially many women who have led, built, and sustained entire teams and who are now also facing the consequences of this situation.
To all of them, I want to express my respect, my admiration, and my empathy. I know that many decisions were made from a place of trust. And I also know that questioning those structures is not always easy. My respect will always be with you.
To those who were able to withdraw, diversify, or recover part of their investment… Please do not feel guilty. Throughout the entire process, we consistently encouraged responsible strategies such as recovering initial capital and diversifying. That was not a mistake.
Each person made decisions based on the information and circumstances available to them at the time. And no one deserves to be judged for that.
If a real solution is truly being pursued, it is essential to seek and to demand clarity and transparency from those who had operational and financial control.
To understand what happened. How much was affected and how. What verified information actually exists. And whether there is a viable and fair plan to respond. Even if it is difficult. Even if it is painful. Even if it is not what we hoped for.
My intention with this message is not to close doors or impose conclusions. It is to share, with transparency, what I experienced and what I can stand behind with evidence. Each person will have to decide what to believe, what to do, and how to move forward.
As for me… I will remain here, showing up, standing accountable for what I communicate, and continuing to support. Because in the end, beyond any project… Integrity will always matter most.
To every person who has reached out to us with respect, even in difficult moments… Thank you.
And to those who are going through challenging times… From the bottom of my heart, I am sorry.
I do not have all the answers. But there is something I know with certainty: Truth, when supported by evidence, always finds its way. And everyone deserves to know it.
With respect,
Mónica
The purpose of this annex is to explain how communication with the community was managed during the period of uncertainty, as well as the reasoning behind the decision not to issue immediate public statements.
Following the system interruption and the lack of clear information from the company:
During this period, direct communication was maintained with individuals who reached out. Messages were addressed on an individual basis, within the scope of the information available at the time. Questions, concerns, and inquiries were addressed directly.
During this time, the vast majority of individuals who reached out received direct responses, based on the information available at that moment.
Despite the pressure to issue public statements, a decision was made not to release general communications at that time. This decision was based on:
It is acknowledged that the absence of public communication may have resulted in a perception of silence, increased uncertainty, and diverse interpretations within the community. However, this decision was not due to a lack of interest or responsibility, but rather a deliberate choice to act with prudence in the absence of confirmed information.
As time progressed, the lack of communication from the company continued, no clear responses were provided, and uncertainty within the community increased. This ultimately led to the need to prepare and share information in a structured manner.
The manner in which communication was handled during this period was based on a decision to act with prudence, guided by the information available at each moment. The objective was always to avoid generating additional confusion and to ensure that any communication shared would be clear, responsible, and grounded in verifiable information.
The purpose of this annex is to document one of the earliest relevant events in the development of this situation: the breakdown in communication with the leadership team and the issuance of a formal communication in which my participation in the project was questioned.
This event represents a key turning point, as from this moment forward, access to information, dialogue, and clarity regarding system operations became significantly limited.
At an early stage, when concerns and inconsistencies began to arise in the system's operation, efforts were made to maintain direct communication with the leadership team in order to understand the actual status of the system, obtain clarity regarding operations, address concerns raised by the community, and maintain alignment with the leadership team.
Instead of establishing a clear and structured dialogue, communication began to be limited, responses became partial or at times absent, and sufficient information was not provided to address the concerns raised. This shift marked the beginning of a progressive deterioration in communication.
Subsequently, a formal communication was received in which my participation in the project was questioned. This communication occurred after requests for clarification had already been made and efforts had been initiated to maintain open communication with leadership.
In response: a request was made for the matter to be addressed in an open and transparent manner; it was proposed that the situation be clarified publicly in order to prevent misinterpretation or confusion within the community; alternatives were suggested to manage the situation in a structured way; and the need for timely action was emphasized, given the crisis context at the time.
However: no clear, structured dialogue was established for clarification or review; no mechanisms were put in place to address the situation in a structured manner; and no follow-up was provided regarding the proposals presented.
Excerpt from formal communication received:
"…does not possess the necessary characteristics to perform well in this task…"
"…we believe that her actions could cause irreversible damage to the project…"
"…lack of leadership, ethical concerns, and loss of confidence…"
"…we can no longer work directly with this upline…"
Excerpt from response issued:
"Please request a meeting with all so we can talk about it and vote."
"Please share us updates so we can also share with our friends and families."
"Help everyone to get their withdrawals."
"We need to have a meeting about this as soon as possible."
"People need direction and communication."
"I can post the letter and my answer in group and request a vote…"
From this point forward, access to relevant information became limited, communication with leadership became increasingly restricted, the ability to participate in key discussions was reduced, and there was no visibility into decision-making processes.
The available evidence indicates that the breakdown in communication was not a unilateral decision, but rather the result of a process in which clarifications were requested, questions were raised, alternative solutions were proposed, and clear responses were not provided by leadership. This event represents one of the first critical points in the situation, as it marked the beginning of a lack of communication that would later impact the ability to understand, respond to, and act upon the events that followed.
The purpose of this annex is to document the operational issues that began to arise within the project, as well as the actions taken to report them, raise questions, and seek solutions with the technical team and leadership.
Within a concentrated period of time, user reports began to emerge regarding payment delays, system inconsistencies, and unexpected platform behavior. These situations were identified through direct reports from the community and were communicated promptly to the technical team and leadership.
The communications included reflect:
It is also observed that responses focused on case-by-case review, manual processes were used to resolve incidents, and there was limited visibility into the overall status of payments.
Screenshots of conversations where multiple users report delays in their withdrawals and express concern regarding pending payments. These communications indicate that the issues were not isolated cases, but rather recurring situations reported directly by the community.
Conversation highlighting cases where certain transactions appeared as approved within the system, but the corresponding funds were not reflected in the users' wallets. This indicates a discrepancy between the status reported by the platform and the actual receipt of funds by users.
Messages directed to the technical team requesting clarity, confirmation of payments, and review of multiple cases reported by users. This demonstrates that, in response to the reports received, active steps were taken to escalate the situation and seek clarification.
Conversations in which measures were proposed to manage the situation, including manual reviews and potential corrective actions. This reflects the intention to contain operational impact while structural solutions were being pursued.
Messages from the team indicating that the situation was under review or would be resolved, without providing technical details or specific solutions. This suggests a lack of structural clarity regarding the actual status of funds and the solutions being implemented.
Screenshots showing irregular system behavior, including inconsistent balances, contradictory reports, and potential operational errors. This reinforces that the issues were not solely based on subjective reports, but that there were observable indications of inconsistencies within the platform.
Based on these communications, it can be observed that the inconsistencies were identified through actual user reports, each situation was reported as it was identified, actions were taken to request review, audit, and clarity, there was no clear tool available to validate the overall status of funds, and resolution often depended on manual intervention in multiple cases.
Each of these situations was reported promptly, as they were identified and communicated by the community.
The evidence presented indicates that once inconsistencies were identified, direct actions were taken to report them, request clarity, and seek solutions. It also indicates that these situations were outside the direct control and resolution capacity of those responsible for communication and community management.
The purpose of this annex is to document the direct communications held with the leadership team, particularly with those responsible, in which clarifications were requested regarding the operational functioning and financial model of the system.
In response to the operational inconsistencies identified and the lack of clarity in the available information, direct conversations were initiated with the objective of understanding the actual functioning of the model, validating the financial sustainability of the system, obtaining clear answers regarding the handling of funds, and confirming the viability of operations.
The communications included reflect direct questions regarding the structural and financial model, requests for clarity regarding the source of payments, concerns about the sustainability of the system, requests for verifiable information, and efforts to obtain structured explanations.
Based on these communications, it can be observed that there was a clear intent to understand the actual functioning of the system, direct questions were raised in response to relevant concerns, clear, complete, or verifiable answers were not provided, and the information available did not allow for an objective validation of the model's sustainability.
The evidence presented indicates that, in the absence of clarity, direct actions were taken to question, analyze, and understand the operational and financial model of the system. This reinforces that decisions were made based on the information available at each moment and that, in the presence of uncertainty, actions were taken to request clarity and transparency.
The purpose of this annex is to present observed inconsistencies between the financial information communicated by the company and the operational data observed throughout the development of the project, based on technical records, monthly statistics, and independently maintained tracking.
During the operation of the system, metrics related to deposits, withdrawals, and overall activity were periodically shared. At the same time, information was available from multiple sources, including internal system reports, monthly technical statistics, and independently maintained tracking records. Under normal circumstances, these sources would be expected to be consistent or, at minimum, reconcilable through a clear explanation.
In a formal communication issued by the company's financial department through a PDF document, a total of approximately USD 43.38 million in deposits was reported. However, this figure presents inconsistencies when compared to previously observed operational data.
This difference does not represent a minor variation, but rather a structural difference in how the data was calculated or presented. One possible technical explanation for this difference is that the figures reported by the company may not include reinvestments as part of total volume, whereas operational records and actual system behavior reflect the full flow of activity (including reinvestment).
Upon receiving this communication, direct questions were raised to the company in order to validate the consistency of the information presented. Specific clarifications were requested regarding the discrepancies identified when comparing these figures with available operational records. However, no clear or verifiable explanation was provided, and no additional information was shared to reconcile the data.
Operational records and system dynamics indicated that a significant portion of users did not withdraw their earnings. Instead, they reinvested within the platform. These reinvestments represented actual system activity and formed part of the normal operational behavior.
Based on the analysis of the figures reported by the company, it appears that reinvestments may not have been fully considered as part of the total reported volume. This creates a relevant discrepancy, as it reduces the perceived volume of the system, does not fully reflect actual user activity, and does not align with data observed in technical reports and independent records.
This difference in how data is accounted for has relevant implications: it makes it difficult to validate the actual financial condition of the system, it creates uncertainty regarding the handling and destination of funds, and it limits visibility into the company's operational capacity.
The differences between the data reported by the company and the available operational records indicate relevant inconsistencies in the financial information. This lack of clarity prevents an accurate understanding of the system's actual condition and limits the ability to objectively assess the situation.
The purpose of this annex is to clarify the structure of access, control, and decision-making within the system, in order to demonstrate that functions related to fund management, withdrawals, and technical operations were not under the control of community leaders.
During the development of the project, roles within the system were divided into distinct areas: the technical area, the financial area, and the leadership/community area. Functions related to fund management and system operations were centralized within specific areas separate from leadership and the community.
Community leaders did not have direct access to the financial system, did not have control over withdrawals, could not process payments, and did not have access to system databases or administrative control.
These access and control limitations were part of the system's defined operational structure. This structure remained consistent over time and was confirmed on multiple occasions through communications from the team, including more recent interactions.
Internal communications reflect that access was restricted to specific locations and/or IP addresses, withdrawal management was limited to a designated individual within the financial area, and decisions related to funds were not accessible to leadership or the community.
This structure implies that community leaders did not have operational capacity over funds, could not intervene in payments or withdrawals, and could not alter or influence the functioning of the system.
The available evidence indicates that system access and control were centralized within specific areas, outside the scope of leadership and the community. Accordingly, decisions related to funds, payments, and system operations were not under the control or within the operational capacity of community leaders.
The purpose of this annex is to present the real context within the community following the system interruption, as well as the type of direct communication maintained with affected individuals. This provides perspective on the level of uncertainty, emotional impact, and pressure generated, as well as how these situations have been addressed.
Following the system interruption, a high level of uncertainty emerged, unverified versions of events began to circulate, multiple interpretations of the situation arose, and many individuals sought answers directly from leadership. In this context, the available information was not always clear, complete, or verifiable.
Throughout this process, multiple direct messages have been received from affected individuals. These messages reflect the magnitude of the financial impact, the emotional burden of the situation, the need for clear answers, and the influence of unverified external information.
[03/21/26, 6:31 PM] Community Member: "Mónica, if you knew this was going to happen, why didn't you tell us? And why were we encouraged to invest in something that is now no longer holding value… My husband invested $30,000… it was our life savings…"
[03/21/26, 6:36 PM] Mónica: "First of all, thank you for reaching out to me directly… Everyone has the right to ask these questions…"
[03/21/26, 6:40 PM] Community Member: "They say you already knew what was going to happen…"
[03/21/26, 6:41 PM] Mónica: "My family also invested… My 17-year-old son invested his savings… As you can see, this situation affects us directly as well…"
[03/21/26, 6:46 PM] Mónica: "If the company is willing to be transparent… I believe a solution could potentially be found…"
This type of communication reflects not only the financial impact, but also the emotional weight and urgency felt within the community.
In response to these situations, direct communication has been maintained with those who have reached out, responses have been provided transparently within the scope of available information at each moment, and statements without verifiable support have been avoided.
This situation reflects that there is an urgent need for clarity and certainty, many decisions are being made based on incomplete information, pressure toward leadership has been constant, and public perception has, in many cases, been shaped without verifiable evidence.
It is also important to recognize that this situation has affected many people in different ways. The fact that someone does not express what they are experiencing does not mean they are not going through difficulties.
Direct communication with the community reflects the real impact of the situation—both financially and emotionally. It also highlights the importance of having clear, verifiable, and responsible information, especially in contexts where uncertainty can lead to misinterpretation and premature conclusions.
This context also invites reflection on how, in situations of uncertainty, perceptions can easily be formed without having complete information. For this reason, it is important to remember that, in moments like this, judging or assigning blame without fully understanding each person's situation does not contribute to solutions, nor does it necessarily reflect the reality of what others are experiencing.
Today, more than ever, I believe that what matters most is the truth. Truth, when supported by evidence, always finds its way. And everyone deserves to know it.