The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations
This article details serious allegations of fraud against Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. In June 2024, investigative account NatInfoSec published a report accusing Blockstream's mining note (BMN) program of potentially operating a multi-billion dollar scheme with Ponzi-like characteristics.
The core allegations focus on Blockstream Mining Notes (BMNs), which offer investors fixed annual yields up to approximately 20% from Bitcoin mining. NatInfoSec's investigation raises several key issues:
1. **Suspicious Hashrate & Payout Capacity**: The analysis suggests Blockstream would need 20-45 EH/s of mining power to cover its BMN obligations, but its public dashboard shows only around 15 EH/s. Furthermore, no verifiable public evidence (e.g., grid connection records, import data) was found to support the massive mining operation required.
2. **Questionable Payout Source**: The BMN contract allows Blockstream to use Bitcoin from *any source* (Substitute Performance BTC) to fulfill investor payouts, raising concerns that payouts may not come from actual mining revenue.
3. **High-Risk, Fixed Returns**: Offering ~20% fixed yields in the volatile, cyclical Bitcoin mining industry is viewed as highly unusual and requires clear explanation.
4. **Undisclosed Criminal Record of Key Figure**: Christopher William Cook, a key figure in Blockstream's mining operations and CEO of spin-off Exacore, was found to have a federal felony conviction for mail fraud in 2008, a fact not disclosed in BMN offering documents. His background was also allegedly embellished.
5. **Potential Contagion to BSTR SPAC**: Questions were raised about whether these liabilities and Cook's record should have been disclosed in the SEC filings for Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a separate Adam Back-associated firm planning a SPAC merger.
The crypto community is divided. BitMEX Research validated Cook's criminal record and expressed concern over the high yields but found other evidence lacking or misleading, noting the legal separation between BMN, Blockstream, and BSTR. Blockstream defenders, like Samson Mow, argue the mining is real. Critics, however, emphasize the lack of independent, verifiable proof of the mining operation's scale and the true source of investor payouts.
The article concludes that BMN remains shrouded in key unanswered questions regarding its actual size, the verifiability of its underlying mining assets and payouts, the source of its high yields, and the full role and disclosure concerning Chris Cook. Blockstream had not issued a comprehensive response at the time of writing.
marsbitHace 3 hora(s)
