BlockDAG Network publicly claimed to have raised $442 million during its presale. The CEO later admitted the real figure was closer to $200 million. On-chain analysis by blockchain investigator ZachXBT found less than $100 million. Three different numbers from the same team. Zero verifiable proof of where any of it is held.
The numbers that do not add up
Throughout the presale period, which ran from March 2024 through early May 2026, BlockDAG's marketing materials consistently cited $442 million as the total amount raised. This number appeared on their website, in Telegram announcements, and in X posts. It was used to create the impression of a heavily backed, credible project.
The CEO of BlockDAG, Nic Van Den Bergh, later stated in communications that approximately $200 million had actually been raised. This alone represents a discrepancy of $242 million from the public figure — more than half of what was advertised.
Three numbers, one project
- $442,000,000 — publicly claimed across all marketing materials and official communications
- ~$200,000,000 — stated by CEO Nic Van Den Bergh in a correction
- <$100,000,000 — found on-chain by ZachXBT through independent blockchain analysis
- $30–60,000,000 — stated by former payroll manager Liza Van Den Berg as the internal figure
- $32,000,000 — disclosed at the January 6, 2026 investor meeting as planned post-launch liquidity
What the blockchain actually shows
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT conducted an independent on-chain analysis of the BlockDAG presale contracts. His findings placed the actual funds received below $100 million — less than a quarter of what was publicly claimed. BlockDAG blocked ZachXBT on X following this publication.
ZachXBT also identified that at least $110 million in presale funds was routed through Middle Eastern over-the-counter brokers to accounts on Binance and BTSE. This routing makes the final destination of the funds difficult to verify independently.
"Stop the lies — the grifter Gurhan Kiziloz is the real co-founder secretly behind BlockDAG who pays people like Antony Turner to be the face of it while transferring away millions in presale funds from unsophisticated retail investors via Middle Eastern OTC brokers." — ZachXBT
The January 6 investor meeting
On January 6, 2026, BlockDAG held an internal investor meeting. According to attendees, the team disclosed that only $32 million was planned for post-launch liquidity. For a project that had publicly claimed $442 million in fundraising, a $32 million liquidity plan represents less than 7% of the claimed total.
Requests by investors at the meeting for on-chain verification of funds through a multisig wallet were reportedly declined. No independent audit has been published to date.
The testimony of the former payroll manager
Liza Van Den Berg, who served as BlockDAG's payroll manager, provided testimony that further contradicts the public fundraising claims. She stated that the internal figures she worked with were $30 to $60 million — not the $442 million promoted externally. She also alleged that the presale had been oversold by more than 100%, meaning more tokens were sold than the supply permitted.
Van Den Berg also confirmed that approximately 24 employees were owed over $140,000 in unpaid December 2025 salaries at the time of her departure. If the project had raised hundreds of millions of dollars, a payroll shortfall of $140,000 would represent a rounding error.
The hidden founder
For over two years, the true founder of BlockDAG was not publicly known. Antony Turner served as CEO and public face of the project. In December 2025, following the DL News investigation, Turner was fired and Gurhan Kiziloz was revealed as the true founder — a figure whose name had been actively censored in BlockDAG's official Telegram group.
Kiziloz's previous company, Lanistar, was liquidated after the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer warning against it in 2020 for unauthorized financial activity. He has also been linked to Big Eyes, Dogetti and Poorcoin — projects that collapsed shortly after launch. Despite Turner holding the CEO title, Kiziloz reportedly maintained effective control over BlockDAG's finances throughout the presale.
Key unanswered questions
- Where is the money held? No multisig address or auditable wallet has been provided.
- Why does the on-chain figure differ from the public claim by more than $300 million?
- Who authorized the routing of $110M+ through OTC brokers to Binance and BTSE?
- Why was a payroll shortfall of $140,000 not covered if hundreds of millions were available?
- Why did three sports sponsorship partners file breach of contract notices for unpaid fees?
The sponsorships that were not paid
BlockDAG signed sponsorship agreements with Borussia Dortmund, Inter Milan and Alpine Racing F1. All three sponsors filed breach of contract or payment default notices after BlockDAG failed to pay agreed fees.
Borussia Dortmund issued a €2,007,444 payment default notice in September 2024. Inter Milan filed a material breach of contract in June 2025 and issued a cease-and-desist in August 2025. Alpine Racing reported $1.4 million in unpaid sponsorship fees with a December 2025 deadline that passed without payment.
A project that raised even $100 million would have sufficient funds to cover these obligations, which total less than $4 million combined. The failure to pay them is inconsistent with any of the fundraising figures claimed.
What we know and what remains unknown
The available evidence points to a significant gap between what was publicly claimed and what was actually raised. The on-chain data, internal testimony, and disclosed liquidity figures are all materially lower than the $442 million figure used to attract investment.
BlockDAG has not published an independent audit. No multisig verification has been provided. The routing of funds through OTC brokers makes independent verification difficult by design.
The question of where the money went does not yet have a documented answer. What is documented is that the amount raised was substantially less than claimed, and that the money available at launch was insufficient to pay employees, sponsors, or provide adequate market liquidity.