Remember Marcelo Garcia Casil?

He’s the guy OneCoin hired to write a blockchain whitepaper back in May.

Given it’d previously been all but confirmed OneCoin didn’t have a blockchain, Casil’s appointment generated significant interest.

In the aftermath of the whitepaper announcement, Casil confirmed the work he did had nothing to do with OneCoin’s “existing IT”.

This seemed to further confirm OneCoin didn’t have a blockchain.

However less than a week after that exchange, Casil (right) pushed out a decidedly conflicting statement:

In recent days there has been publicity on the Internet suggesting that I have questioned the existing technological capabilities supporting the OneCoin cryptocurrency.

Any such suggestion is false and misrepresents my position.

If this statement sounded forced it’s because, by Casil’s own admission, it was.

I carelessly replied to questions on LinkedIn and Twitter about Onecoin, and in doing so I risked breaching my NDA, so I had to make that statement.

Now once again the story has changed, with Casil going on the record to claim he ‘made a mistake and … was foolish in getting involved‘.

Marcelo Garcia Casil is CEO of DXMarkets, who now appear to go by the name Maecenas.

Since May Casil and Maecenas have moved on and are currently developing a decentralized blockchain based art gallery.

As the project gains exposure and momentum however, Casil’s prior involvement in OneCoin continues to haunt him.

In an attempt to clear the air once and for all, Casil has taken to Reddit to address the matter.

I was referred by another startup to run a tech audit on a blockchain system that another company had.

New management had joined that other company and they wanted to have an independent perspective on their internal systems.

That would be Pierre Arrens who all but in name took over from OneLife CEO Pablo Munoz.

OneCoin avoided naming Arrens as Munoz’s direct replacement by crowning him CEO of OneCoin instead of OneLife.

But I digress, back to Casil;

I tentatively accepted, and only later on learned that this other company was OneCoin.

I went ahead with the assignment in the belief that auditing a system and providing input on blockchain technology would ultimately help the wider community.

I believed it would help the people who might end up using it and do what Blockchain can do best – bring transparency.

I had the right intentions … but I realised later I was naive in this case because I had misjudged how my involvement would be misconstrued.

I acted as an external and fully-independent party and, as is often the case with auditing, I had to sign an NDA. I still have to comply with that obligation even though it means I can’t provide details that would correct misinterpretations.

The misinterpretations appear to not be whether or not OneCoin has/had a blockchain, but rather the extent of Casil’s involvement with OneCoin on a professional level.

For our part BehindMLM doesn’t consider Casil a OneCoin insider or part of their management.

He does however appear to be in a position to blow the inner workings of the Ponzi wide open to the relevant authorities – which in my opinions trumps Casil’s NDA obligations.

I delivered, as agreed, a report detailing my objective findings and made recommendations for improvements.

I was then asked to produce a new report explaining the theory on how blockchain technology is to be implemented in a centralised environment like the company’s and how to correctly leverage the benefits of the technology.

That last paragraph again strongly implies that OneCoin has never used “blockchain technology” to power its Ponzi points scheme.

I believed I was doing something positive that would benefit everyone in the ecosystem.

However, some people reacted very negatively to the news and started attacking me.

I made the mistake of responding to the trolls and very quickly my words were twisted and false stories were created and published.

I then decided to stop commenting on the subject completely.

About two weeks later, things settled down and I heard no more about it, except for the odd message from someone who bumped into the material online.

But I am aware our increasingly broad group of supporters may now also stumble across this. So, I wanted to tell the real story.

Other than additional confirmations that Casil was brought on board to explore the possibility of blockchain implementation (meaning OneCoin didn’t have a blockchain), unfortunately no new information is provided.

Casil does suggest there were plans for his company to implement a blockchain for OneCoin, but stops short of confirming whether or not this actually took place.

I did an independent audit first and delivered a report, so in that capacity I was an independent auditor.

That then led into the request for the white paper and a license for a blockchain software implementing the features described in the same document, which I also did as an external party.

Whether Casil is referring to the whitepaper or actually implementing what’s in the whitepaper is unclear.

He does however claim he has “no idea what (OneCoin has) now”.

I did the audit back in March and that was it, and as I said I’m legally not allowed to give details about it.

As to whether he was aware he was potentially assisting OneCoin management perpetuate Ponzi fraud, Casil writes;

I did look (OneCoin) up and I did find the reports, and I decided to accept the job thinking that I was doing the right thing and for the benefit of the community.

In hindsight that was a very naive and foolish thing to do, but it wasn’t so clear to me at that time. I wish I could go back in time.

That Casil now regrets “getting involved” in the OneCoin Ponzi mess speaks for itself.

As stupid as it may sound, I was fully aware of all the articles about Onecoin and the allegations of scams at the time I decided to accept the task.

I did it on the rationale that I was helping the community as the users of Onecoin were going to get greater transparency and be able to see what was going on.

My thinking was that the audit, commissioned by the new management of Onecoin, was going to result in more transparency for the community.

That was my personal conclusion based on the conversations that I had with them.

I look at it now and it seems incredibly naive, but that’s what I honestly believed at the time.

With OneCoin burying Casil’s whitepaper and there still being no evidence of a blockchain, it’s easy to see why he might be frustrated with the company.

One thing he doesn’t disclose is how much he was paid for his work – and whether any of that money was used to fund Maecenas’ current project.

Casil claims he never personally invested in OneCoin.

I’m obviously not privy to the specifics of Casil’s contract with OneCoin, but perhaps if payment was returned he’d be free to speak about the subject and clarify what he feels he currently cannot?

I wish I could be more clear and give more details but unfortunately the NDA that I signed means that I have legal boundaries that don’t allow me to express freely.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a third-party returned stolen investor funds upon realizing OneCoin was just trying to purchase legitimacy.

Appearing to have learnt a lesson from all of this, Casil advises others who might get involved with OneCoin to ‘be more careful about the jobs you accept, or you will be sorry – like I am.

Yes, I fucked up. Even the best intentions may lead to the wrong decisions, but I can’t go back in time, I can only learn from my mistakes and move forward, and that’s what I’m trying to do.

While Casil’s experience is admittedly that of a third-party contractor, his advice might present a chilling irony for OneCoin investors who care to take heed.